“Aggregate Litigation and the Death of Democratic Dispute Resolution”

That's the name of this article by law professor Linda Mullenix. Here's the abstract:

Redish has both anchored the modern class action in American political
and constitutional theory, raising serious questions about the
legitimacy of this procedural device for resolving aggregate claims.
Professor Redish’s major insight is his argument that the courts and
litigants have transformed the modern class action from a mere
procedural device into a means for controlling and altering substantive
law, in ways that he considers to be highly undemocratic.

however, have suggested that the class action is dead. The article
surveys accounts of the death of class actions and explains the
continued endurance of class litigation ― which, it turns out ― is hard
to kill off. The article then documents the changing landscape of
aggregate dispute resolution, documenting a significant paradigm shift
in the twenty-first century towards increased use of private claims
resolution mechanisms. The article focuses on settlement classes,
multidistrict litigation procedure, contractual non-class settlements,
the quasi class action, and fund approaches to mass claim resolution.

the article critically evaluates this paradigm shift and concludes that
Redish’s critique of class action litigation has even greater relevance
in the new world of non-class, aggregate claims resolution: that
Professor Redish’s critique applies with even greater force in the
non-class universe. With the paradigm shift towards non-class aggregate
claims resolution, the arc of history may be bending towards greater
injustice ― a shift that is more significant because it is largely
unbounded by rules and unmoored from judicial oversight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *