DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States District Court

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States District Court Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE DIAL CORPORATION, et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-06802-WHP Individually and on behalf of Similarly Situated Companies, Plaintiffs, v. NEWS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. DECLARATION OF STEVEN F. BENZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 17 I, Steven F. Benz, declare as follows: 1. I submit this declaration in support of preliminary approval of the settlement reached on behalf of the certified Class and Defendants News Corporation, News America, Inc., News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C., and News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. (collectively, “Defendants”). 2. I am a partner with the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. (“Kellogg Huber”), which is Co-Lead Counsel for the Class of plaintiffs certified by the Court on June 18, 2015. I am a member of good standing of the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota bars, and am admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration. I became involved in this case at its inception in 2011 and am closely familiar with all aspects of this case since that time. 3. Both Kellogg Huber and I personally have significant experience with antitrust litigation and class actions, including settlements thereof. Copies of my firm’s resume and my personal profile are annexed to this declaration as Exhibit A. 4. My colleague as Co-Lead Class Counsel, James T. Southwick, details the massive discovery that proceeded in this litigation in paragraph 5 of his declaration. Reviewing that discovery, defending Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts, and litigating the parties’ motions in limine gave me a deep understanding of the strong and weak points in the Plaintiffs’ case. 5. After the Court denied the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on January 15, 2016, Mr. Southwick and I began preliminary discussions with Daniel Kramer, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P., regarding a potential settlement of the class action. 1 Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 17 6. After February 24, 2016, the Defendants notified Mr. Southwick and me of the individual Class Members who had settled pursuant to the Court’s November 16, 2015 Order. Mr. Southwick and I were then able to reevaluate the Class’s damages claims, excluding the claims of those who had settled with the Defendants, those who entered into arbitration clauses with the Defendants, and those whose claims may have been barred in part by contractual limitations clauses within their purchasing agreements with the Defendants. 7. As Mr. Southwick explains in paragraph 16 of his declaration, Plaintiffs prepared two alternate damages presentations: a core damages calculation based on the anticompetitive conduct alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint and an adjusted version of the core damages calculation should the jury find that the guaranteed retailer payments the Defendants made to retailers after Valassis entered the market for third-party in-store promotions products were also anticompetitive. The adjusted version of the core damages calculation resulted in a higher damages value but had a lower chance of success. Mr. Southwick and I determined that, after February 24, 2016, the Class’s damages under the core calculation were $230 million and were $446 million under the adjusted version of the core calculation. 8. Based on these revised calculations, Mr. Southwick and I had continued discussions with Mr. Kramer. In the days before trial, the parties came closer to an agreement but could not reach a final agreement on the material terms of a settlement until February 29, 2016, the first day of the scheduled trial. Mr. Southwick, Mr. Kramer, David Pitofsky, News Corporation’s General Counsel, and I continued our discussions in the courthouse until we agreed on and signed the Terms Sheet that the Court recorded on the docket on March 1, 2016. 2 Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 4 of 17 9. After several more weeks of negotiations, the parties agreed on and signed the Settlement Agreement on May 2, 2016. Mr. Southwick summarizes the key terms of the Settlement Agreement in paragraph 15 of his declaration. 10. The cash consideration for the settlement, $244 million, is 106% of the core damage calculation and 54% of the adjusted calculation. In my experience as a litigator in antitrust and class action cases, exceeding single damages is an excellent recovery for the Class in light of the risks of maintaining the case through judgment and appeal, both on the merits and with respect to class certification. 11. In addition to exceeding single damages, the Settlement Agreement provides for what I consider to be excellent structural relief. As Mr. Southwick notes in paragraph 17 of his declaration, the structural relief addresses the principal issues with the Defendants’ retailer contracts that Plaintiffs assert are anticompetitive. The structural relief may permit a competitor to enter the marketplace for third-party in-store promotions, which I believe will lower prices for all Class Members in the future. 12. In addition to providing the Defendants with a release of claims, the Settlement Agreement also provides for an agreement to arbitrate antitrust, competition or similar claims for five years and covenants not to sue regarding the structural relief and the relief underlying the claims in this litigation. Like Mr. Southwick, I believe that these concessions were necessary to achieve the significant monetary and structural relief for the Class. 13. Plaintiffs’ Counsel propose to distribute the settlement fund, after fees and costs that the Court may award, to Class Members who return a Proof of Claim form on a proportional basis to their dollar purchases of in-store promotions products from the Defendants during the Class Period. If there are uncashed checks, a second proportional distribution will be made to 3 Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 5 of 17 those Class Members who did cash the first-round checks. Like Mr. Southwick, I believe that this distribution is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. 14. I also agree with Mr. Southwick that another opt-out period is not appropriate for the reasons he provides in paragraph 18 of his declaration. Dated: May2,2016 Steven F. Benz t Co-Lead Class Counsel 4 Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 6 of 17 Exhibit A Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 7 of 17 KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. Sumner Square Suite 400 1615 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 326-7900 Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. was formed in the spring of 1993 by law school classmates Michael Kellogg, Peter Huber, and Mark Hansen (Harvard ’82). The firm has grown rapidly since then. It now includes 33 Partners, 31 Associates, 3 Of Counsel, 17 Staff Attorneys, and 10 Paralegals and Researchers. Our practice is focused on trials and appeals in federal and state courts across the United States and before federal agencies. This litigation builds on the experience of the firm’s partners as lawyers at the Department of Justice and elsewhere in the federal government and in other endeavors. Michael Kellogg, Mark Hansen, Chris Todd, Reid Figel, Jim Webster, and Wan Kim served as Assistant United States Attorneys; Michael Kellogg and David Frederick served as Assistants to the Solicitor General; Rebecca Beynon served as Deputy General Counsel at the Office of Management and Budget and as a Special Assistant to the President; Wan Kim served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division; and Courtney Simmons Elwood served as an Associate Counsel to the President, Deputy Counsel to the Vice President, and Deputy Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. Geoff Klineberg served as the Counselor on International Law in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the Department of State. And Sean Lev recently returned to the firm after serving as General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission as well as Acting General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel for Environment & Nuclear Programs at the Department of Energy. Michael Kellogg and Peter Huber wrote a leading treatise on federal telecommunications law; Peter Huber wrote the landmark Department Case 1:13-cv-06802-WHP Document 567 Filed 05/02/16 Page 8 of 17 of Justice report on the breakup of AT&T and is a leading author and speaker on telecommunications and tort reform; David Frederick wrote a leading treatise on Supreme Court advocacy; Chris Todd served as a member of the Iran-Contra prosecution team; John Thorne was Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc. where he headed Verizon’s competition and intellectual property practice groups. Our Lawyers The firm’s partners have been lead counsel in more than 100 federal and state trials and appeals, and have argued more than 45 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. The firm was founded with the conviction that able young lawyers can assume substantial responsibility at an early point in their careers for matters at both the trial and the appellate stages. We believe that this benefits both our clients, who receive cost-effective service from highly motivated attorneys, and the attorneys, who experience the satisfaction of practice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument Conferences, Events and Lectures 2017 List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notre Dame Law School, "List of Judges 1985–2017" (2017). Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument. 1. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences, Events and Lectures at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. List of Judges that Have Served the Moot Court Showcase Argument 2009 to present held in McCarten Court Room, Eck Hall of Law Updated: March 2017 Name Yr. Served ND Grad Court Judge Alice Batchelder 3/3/2017 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Justice Matthew Durrant 3/3/2017 Utah Supreme Court NDLS 1992 Judge John Blakey 3/3/2017 BA-UND 1988 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Chief Justice Matthew G. Durrant 2/25/2106 Utah Supreme Court Judge Alice Batchelder 2/25/2016 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly 2/25/2016 BA-UND 1983 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joel F. Dubina 2/26/2015 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Chief Judge Frederico A. Moreno 2/26/2015 United States District Court - Miami, FL Judge Patricia O'Brien Cotter 2/26/2015 NDLS 1977 Montana Supreme Court Judge Margaret A.
    [Show full text]
  • CAREERS DONALD SHUM ’13 Is an Associate at Cooley in New York City; ALYSSA KUHN ’13 Is Clerking for Judge Joseph F
    CAREERS DONALD SHUM ’13 is an associate at Cooley in New York City; ALYSSA KUHN ’13 is clerking for Judge Joseph F. Bianco of the Eastern District of New York after working as an associate at Gibson Dunn in New York; and ZACH TORRES-FOWLER ’12 is an associate at Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia. THE CAREER SERVICES PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW is one of the most successful among national law VIRGINIA ENJOYS A REPUTATION FOR PRODUCING LAWYERS who master the schools and provides students with a wide range of job intellectual challenges of legal practice, and also contribute broadly to the institutions they join through strong leadership and interpersonal skills. opportunities across the nation and abroad. AS A RESULT, PRIVATE- AND PUBLIC-SECTOR EMPLOYERS HEAVILY RECRUIT VIRGINIA STUDENTS EACH YEAR. Graduates start their careers across the country with large and small law firms, government agencies and public interest groups. ZACHARY REPRESENTATIVE RAY ’16 EMPLOYERS TAYLOR clerked for U.S. CLASSES OF 2015-17 STEFFAN ’15 District Judge clerked for Gershwin A. Judge Patrick Drain of the LOS ANGELES Higginbotham of Eastern District UNITED Hewlett Packard Enterprise Jones Day the 5th U.S. Circuit of Michigan STATES Dentons Jones Day Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Court of Appeals SARAH after law school, Howarth & Smith Reed Smith Morrison & Foerster in Austin, Texas, PELHAM ’16 followed by a ALABAMA Latham & Watkins Simpson Thacher & Bartlett Orrick, Herrington & before returning is an associate clerkship with BIRMINGHAM Mercer Consulting Sullivan & Cromwell Sutcliffe to Washington, with Simpson Judge Roger L. REDWOOD CITY D.C., to work for Thacher & Gregory of the Bradley Arant Boult Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Perkins Coie Covington Bartlett in New 4th U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Neuroscience and Sentencing
    Fordham Law Review Volume 85 Issue 2 Article 7 2016 Neuroscience and Sentencing Nancy Gertner Harvard Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Law and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Nancy Gertner, Neuroscience and Sentencing, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 533 (2016). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss2/7 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NEUROSCIENCE AND SENTENCING Nancy Gertner* INTRODUCTION This symposium comes at a propitious time for me. I am reviewing the sentences I was obliged to give to hundreds of men—mostly African American men—over the course of a seventeen-year federal judicial career.1 As I have written elsewhere, I believe that 80 percent of the sentences that I imposed were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate.2 Everything that I thought was important—that neuroscientists, for example, have found to be salient in affecting behavior—was irrelevant to the analysis I was supposed to conduct. My goal—for which this symposium plays an important part—is to reevaluate those sentences now under a more rational and humane system, this time at least informed by the insights of science. The question is how to do that: How can neuroscience contribute to the enterprise and what are the pitfalls? This Article represents a few of my preliminary conclusions, but my retrospective analysis is not complete.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the U.S. Attorneys
    Bicentennial Celebration of the United States Attorneys 1789 - 1989 "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor– indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." QUOTED FROM STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U. S. 88 (1935) Note: The information in this document was compiled from historical records maintained by the Offices of the United States Attorneys and by the Department of Justice. Every effort has been made to prepare accurate information. In some instances, this document mentions officials without the “United States Attorney” title, who nevertheless served under federal appointment to enforce the laws of the United States in federal territories prior to statehood and the creation of a federal judicial district. INTRODUCTION In this, the Bicentennial Year of the United States Constitution, the people of America find cause to celebrate the principles formulated at the inception of the nation Alexis de Tocqueville called, “The Great Experiment.” The experiment has worked, and the survival of the Constitution is proof of that.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Genealogy (And Mythology) of John Roberts: Clerkships from Gray to Brandeis to Friendly to Roberts
    The Judicial Genealogy (and Mythology) of John Roberts: Clerkships from Gray to Brandeis to Friendly to Roberts BRAD SNYDER* During his Supreme Court nomination hearings, John Roberts idealized and mythologized the first judge he clerkedfor, Second Circuit Judge Henry Friendly, as the sophisticated judge-as-umpire. Thus far on the Court, Roberts has found it difficult to live up to his Friendly ideal, particularlyin several high-profile cases. This Article addresses the influence of Friendly on Roberts and judges on law clerks by examining the roots of Roberts's distinguishedyet unrecognized lineage of former clerks: Louis Brandeis 's clerkship with Horace Gray, Friendly's clerkship with Brandeis, and Roberts's clerkships with Friendly and Rehnquist. Labeling this lineage a judicial genealogy, this Article reorients clerkship scholarship away from clerks' influences on judges to judges' influences on clerks. It also shows how Brandeis, Friendly, and Roberts were influenced by their clerkship experiences and how they idealized their judges. By laying the clerkship experiences and career paths of Brandeis, Friendly, and Roberts side-by- side in detailed primary source accounts, this Article argues that judicial influence on clerks is more professional than ideological and that the idealization ofjudges and emergence of clerks hips as must-have credentials contribute to a culture ofjudicial supremacy. * Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School. Thanks to Eleanor Brown, Dan Ernst, David Fontana, Abbe Gluck, Dirk Hartog, Dan
    [Show full text]
  • Council and Participants
    The American Law Institute DAVID F. LEVI, President ROBERTA COOPER RAMO, Chair of the Council DOUGLAS LAYCOCK, 1st Vice President LEE H. ROSENTHAL, 2nd Vice President WALLACE B. JEFFERSON, Treasurer PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, Secretary RICHARD L. REVESZ, Director STEPHANIE A. MIDDLETON, Deputy Director COUNCIL KIM J. ASKEW, K&L Gates, Dallas, TX JOSE I. ASTIGARRAGA, Reed Smith, Miami, FL DONALD B. AYER, Jones Day, Washington, DC SCOTT BALES, Arizona Supreme Court, Phoenix, AZ JOHN H. BEISNER, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Washington, DC JOHN B. BELLINGER III, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC AMELIA H. BOSS, Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, Philadelphia, PA ELIZABETH J. CABRASER, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, San Francisco, CA EVAN R. CHESLER, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, NY MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR, California Supreme Court, San Francisco, CA IVAN K. FONG, 3M Company, St. Paul, MN KENNETH C. FRAZIER, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Washington, DC STEVEN S. GENSLER, University of Oklahoma College of Law, Norman, OK ABBE R. GLUCK, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland, CA ANTON G. HAJJAR, Chevy Chase, MD TERESA WILTON HARMON, Sidley Austin, Chicago, IL NATHAN L. HECHT, Texas Supreme Court, Austin, TX WILLIAM C. HUBBARD, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, SC SAMUEL ISSACHAROFF, New York University School of Law, New York, NY KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC WALLACE B. JEFFERSON, Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP, Austin, TX GREGORY P.
    [Show full text]
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)
    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Opinion Writing: Gerald Lebovits
    JUDICIAL OPINION WRITING For State Tax Judges October 12, 2018 Chicago, Illinois GERALD LEBOVITS Acting Justice, NYS Supreme Court Adjunct Professor of Law, Columbia Law School Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law Judicial Opinion Writing For State Tax Judges October 12, 2018 By: Gerald Lebovits Table of Contents Gerald Lebovits, Alifya V. Curtin & Lisa Solomon, Ethical Judicial Opinion Writing, 21 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 237 (2008).................................................................................... A Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Ethical Judicial Writing—Part I, 78 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Nov./Dec. 2006) ................................................................................. B Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Ethical Judicial Writing—Part II, 79 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Jan. 2007) ........................................................................................... C Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Ethical Judicial Writing—Part III, 79 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Feb. 2007)........................................................................................... D Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Legal-Writing Ethics—Part I, 77 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Oct. 2005) ........................................................................................... E Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, Legal-Writing Ethics—Part II, 77 N.Y. St. B.J. 64 (Nov./Dec. 2005) ................................................................................. F Gerald
    [Show full text]
  • United States Courts for the First Circuit 2014 Annual Report
    UNITED STATES COURTS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 2014 ANNUAL REPORT United States Courts for the First Circuit 2014 Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword. ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Structure of the Federal Judiciary ................................................................................................... 2 Narrative Reports of the Units of the Court of Appeals Clerk's Office ..................................................................................................................... 4 Office of the Staff Attorneys ............................................................................................... 5 Civil Appeals Management Program .................................................................................. 5 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ................................................................................................ 7 Libraries of the First Circuit ................................................................................................ 7 Narrative Reports of the Districts District of Maine .............................................................................................................. 11 District of Massachusetts ................................................................................................. 17 District of New Hampshire .............................................................................................. 24 District of Puerto Rico
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Spring 2003 Meeting of Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules May 15, 2003 Washington, D.C
    Minutes of Spring 2003 Meeting of Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules May 15, 2003 Washington, D.C. I. Introductions Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., called the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules to order on Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in Washington, D.C. The following Advisory Committee members were present: Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, Judge Carl E. Stewart, Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., Justice Richard C. Howe, Prof. Carol Ann Mooney, Mr. W. Thomas McGough, Jr., Mr. Sanford Svetcov, and Mr. John G. Roberts, Jr. Mr. Douglas Letter, Appellate Litigation Counsel, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, was present representing the Solicitor General. Also present were Ms. Marcia M. Waldron, the liaison from the appellate clerks; Mr. John K. Rabiej from the Administrative Office; and Ms. Marie C. Leary from the Federal Judicial Center. Judge Alito announced that the terms of Judge Motz and Prof. Mooney would expire before the next meeting of the Committee. Judge Alito thanked Judge Motz and Prof. Mooney for their devoted service to the Committee — in Judge Motz’s case, as a member, and in Prof. Mooney’s case, first as the Reporter and then as a member. Judge Alito also announced that the nomination of Mr. Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had been approved by the Senate on May 8. On behalf of the entire Committee, Judge Alito congratulated Mr. Roberts on his confirmation. II. Approval of Minutes of November 2002 Meeting The minutes of the November 2002 meeting were approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Visiting Judges
    Visiting Judges Marin K. Levy* Despite the fact that Article III judges hold particular seats on particular courts, the federal system rests on judicial interchangeability. Hundreds of judges “visit” other courts each year and collectively help decide thousands of appeals. Anyone from a retired Supreme Court Justice to a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade to a district judge from out of circuit may come and hear cases on a given court of appeals. Although much has been written about the structure of the federal courts and the nature of Article III judgeships, little attention has been paid to the phenomenon of “sitting by designation”—how it came to be, how it functions today, and what it reveals about the judiciary more broadly. This Article offers an overdue account of visiting judges. It begins by providing an origin story, showing how the current practice stems from two radically different traditions. The first saw judges as fixed geographically, and allowed for visitors only as a stopgap measure when individual judges fell ill or courts fell into arrears with their cases. The second assumed greater fluidity within the courts, requiring Supreme Court Justices to ride circuit—to visit different regions and act as trial and appellate judges—for the first half of the Court’s history. These two traditions together provide the critical context for modern-day visiting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZK55M67 Copyright © 2019 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Cool & Unusual Advocates
    The The INSIDE Law School Practice Makes Perfect: Clinical training gives students The a professional edge. The Family Guy: One professor | T insists that the legal system can HE HE better serve children. Nine maga Lawthe magazine of the new yorkSchool university school of law • autumn 2007 experts debate his ideas. ZI From understanding contract principles to N “ E deciphering federal, state, and local codes OF T and ordinances to negotiating with various HE N parties, the skills I gained during my years Y EW O at the NYU School of Law were invaluable RK in the business world. UN ” IVERSI In 2005, Deborah Im ’04 took time off to pursue a dream: T She opened a “cupcakery” in Berkeley, California, to rave S Y reviews. When she sold the business to practice law again, C H she remembered the Law School with a generous donation. OO L L Our $400 million campaign was launched with another OF L goal: to increase participation by 50 percent. Members A of every class are doing their part to make this happen. W You should know that giving any amount counts. Meeting or surpassing our participation goal would be, well, icing on the cake. Please call (212) 998-6061 or visit us at https://nyulaw.publishingconcepts.com/giving. Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Buffalo, NY Office of Development and Alumni Relations Permit No. 559 161 Avenue of the Americas, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10013-1205 autumn 2007, volume X volume 2007, autumn vii Cool & Unusual Advocates Anthony Amsterdam and Bryan Stevenson reveal what compels them to devote their lives to saving the condemned.
    [Show full text]