by T. Alexander Aleinikoff & Stephen Poellot
VOLUME 54 :: No. 2
VOLUME 54 :: No. 2
How to Train a Toothless Dragon: Finding Room for Improvement in China’s Transfer Pricing Regulations
This Note will explore four additional justifications for refusing to certify a class consisting of foreign citizens — justifications that draw on and are bound up with the doctrine of forum non conveniens. These justifications are occasionally evaluated by district courts in concluding whether to certify a class, but are not relied on often enough, and the academic literature only discusses them sparingly and descriptively.
First, if choice of law principles dictate that foreign law applies to foreign class members, the class will likely fail the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) and the superiority and predominance requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Second, including foreign citizens would increase the manageability burdens on overtaxed U.S. courts, which could fail the requirements imposed by Rules 23(b)(3)(C) and 23(b)(3)(D). Third and related, courts have found that including foreign citizens would fail to provide the superior method to resolve the dispute under Rule 23(b)(3) because of the difficulty of providing notice to foreign citizens. Fourth, as the class action device becomes more common in foreign countries, comity concerns should cause U.S. courts not to include foreign plaintiffs who have a remedy easily available in their home countries. While some courts have occasionally invoked each of these latter four justifications, many courts have often based their decisions of whether to certify a class consisting of foreign plaintiffs by trying to predict if a foreign country would give preclusive effect to their judgment. In short, there is little consensus on the criteria best suited to resolving this important issue.
This Note will argue that the principles of the doctrine of forum non conveniens should be more frequently applied to prevent certification of a class consisting of any foreign citizens for the four reasons that courts and commentators often overlook. These arguments provide a more administrable approach for deciding certification rather than that of a court attempting to discern whether a foreign court would preclude class members from getting a second bite in subsequent litigation in a foreign forum.
| VIEW PDF
NEWS & EVENTS
August 19, 2014Drone Law: A Reply to UN Special Rapporteur Emmerson
NEWSLETTERSign up to join our newsletter
Although this organization has members who are University of Virginia students and may have University employees associated or engaged inits activities and affairs, the organization is not a part of or an agency of the University. It is a separate and independent organization which is responsible for and manages its own activities and affairs. The University does not direct, supervise or control the organization and is not responsible for the organization’s contracts, acts or omissions.