Associate Dean Susan Keller returned last week to Harvard College to participate in a symposium celebrating her undergraduate major, Folklore and Mythology. She talked about how the techniques she learned for studying oral and traditional narratives can inform the analysis of appellate legal opinions.
Professor Glenn Koppel recently published The Case for Nonmutual Privity in Vicarious Liability Relationships: Pushing the Frontiers of the Law of Claim Preclusion in the Winter 2017 issue of the Campbell Law Review. The article addresses an evolving area of preclusion law: nonmutual claim preclusion and the related issue of privity between parties to a vicarious liability relationship. This corner of preclusion law became the subject of a controversial sample multiple choice question published in 2014 by the National Committee of Bar Examiners. Scholarly commentary on the Civil Procedure listserve agreed that two out of the four choices were arguably correct, but presented an array of differing views as to the correct answer. The article presents a national survey of state and federal case law of claim and issue preclusion, and proposes that derivative liability relationships should be added to the recognized categories of substantive legal relationships commonly referred to as “privity “ to support the application of nonmutual claim preclusion, rather than the narrower concept of nonmutual issue preclusion.
Professor Jennifer Koh recently published Crimmigration and the Void for Vagueness in the Wisconsin Law Review. The article discusses the application of the void for vagueness doctrine to crime-based removal provisions in the immigration law. It argues that the federal courts should find several immigration provisions unconstitutionally vague because the twin values animating vagueness doctrine–providing reasonable notice and preventing arbitrary or discriminatory law enforcement practices–apply with exceptional force in immigration, an area of law in which the liberty stakes of the crime-based removal grounds are high, notice is critical, and the risk of arbitrariness and discrimination by government actors at multiple levels is acute. The article was cited in the merits brief of the Respondent as well as the amicus brief submitted by the National Immigration Project to the United States Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya, a case involving whether 18 U.S.C. sec. 16(b), as incorporated into the federal immigration law, is unconstitutionally vague. The citation for the article is 2016 Wis. L. Rev. 1127.
On February 24, Professor Jennifer Koh spoke at an immigration law symposium hosted by The Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Race and Social Justice, in San Antonio, Texas. Her presentation was based on her forthcoming publication, Removal in the Shadows of Immigration Court, 90 S. Cal. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming, 2017), which discusses the various removal procedures that enable the government to deport certain noncitizens without hearings before immigration courts or that involve minimal substantive review by those courts.
Adjunct Professor Neil Pedersen has again been named a Southern California Super Lawyer in the 2017 edition of Super Lawyers Magazine by Thomson Reuters. This distinction is conferred on select attorneys based on a process involving peer nomination, independent research and evaluation by the publisher, with about 5% of attorneys in the state being named to the list. Professor Pedersen also has been named as one of the 2017 “Best Employment Attorneys in Orange County” by the publishers of Orange Coast Magazine, for the fourth year in a row.
On January 12, 2017, Professor Jennifer Koh spoke at a community forum entitled, “Advancing Justice in Orange County,” which was held at Whittier Law School and sponsored by Asian Americans Advancing Justice as well as over 25 community organizations and academic institutions. The purpose of the forum was to discuss how individuals and groups across Orange County can advance social justice under the incoming Presidential Administration. The panel was moderated by Sylvia Kim (Advancing Justice) and also included Prof. Stephen Lee (UC Irvine), Karin Wang (Advancing Justice), Hussam Ayloush (CAIR), and Carlos Perea (Resilience OC).
Professor Lori Roberts’ article, “Brawling with the Consumer Review Site Bully,” has been published in the University of Cincinnati Law Review, at 84 U. Cin. 633 (2016). Professor Roberts’ article explores the seedy underbelly of crowd-sourced consumer review sites, examines the relationship between consumer review sites, reviewers, and the businesses being reviewed, and outlines the legal landscape for businesses brawling with the consumer review sites. The Article proposes a solution that includes enforcement of non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts while acknowledging the critical importance of free speech and public debate, the policies behind anti-SLAPP laws, and the bad public policy of enabling businesses to offer inferior products and service while secretly tucking non-disparagement clauses into their terms of service.