CIVIL LITIGATION IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT B544

Winter 2011
Room 116, Wednesdays, 8:20 – 10:20 AM

Contact Information:
Visiting Professor Carl Goodman
Office: Room 449 | Phone: 206-685-1635 | Email: carlg2@uw.edu

Assistant: Lisa Town, Room 422

lisatown@uw.edu

Course Description
This course is intended to introduce students to the fundamentals of litigation in civil law systems in
comparison to the American system in order to provide them with the foundations needed to practice in
the international and transnational law fields, either in law firms or in a variety of corporations that
engage in cross border transactions that could lead to dispute resolution either in the U.S. or abroad.

The course offers a comparative perspective through the lens of a litigation practitioner. It focuses on the
approach to civil litigation including court structure, legal professionals, lawsuit initiation and service of
process, trial, evidence gathering, appeal as well as preclusion rules in the U.S. common law system, the
German civil law system and the Japanese hybrid system.

Course Objectives
Throughout the course students will acquire practical knowledge of the basic workings of civil litigation
systems in civil, hybrid and common law systems using the United States, German and Japanese civil
litigation systems as models. Among subjects covered are initiation of suit, gathering evidence, trial and
appeal, which should be helpful for student’s pursuing or developing a practice that implicates cross-
border issues or working for a firm or corporation that is involved with transnational legal transactions or
disputes.

Course Materials
Chase, Hershkoff, Silberman, Taniguchi, Varano and Zuckerman, Civil Litigation in Comparative
Context (Thompson West 2007)

Additional readings as assigned.

For students who desire additional readings on any subject or subjects I will be happy to provide
citations for additional source materials. I will establish office hours when I will be available to
discuss the course or Japan in general with students who wish to do so. Feel free to contact me at
the school or after class to set up such meeting.

Course Requirements and Final Examination

There will an open book final examination at the end of the quarter. Students will be able to use the text
and any class notes they have taken during the exam. Be aware that “During an open book examination,
except as specified by the instructor, students may access and read material previously saved, but may
not copy previously saved material and may not use a search function to locate material from any

1
Civil Litigation in Comparative Context B544 | Winter 2012
Goodman

source.” Attendance, class participation and the final exam are all part of the final grade for the course.
Greatest weight will be given to the final exam and will be the starting basis for the final grade. However,
class participation will comprise a significant part of the grading decision and the final grade may be
adjusted upwards or downwards based on participation.

You can view the grading policy for the School of Law here:
http://www.law.washington.edu/students/academics/Grading.aspx

I recognize that there are times when it may not be possible for students to be fully prepared for a class
session – just let me know when the class begins so we can avoid embarrassment to either you or me –
and it will not be counted against you in the grading decision.

For the final examinations, you are encouraged to use a computer if at all possible. While you are not
required to do so, typing your exams greatly improves their legibility and helps to ensure that they will be
graded in an expeditious manner.

Exam4 is the law school’s exam-taking software. If you are taking your exam by computer, I require that
you use Exam4. You must download the program before you take your exams; additional time will not be
given for downloading on exam days. For additional information about Exam4, please contact Academic
Services and consult the law school’s examination policies at:
http://www.law.washington.edu/students/academics/Exams.aspx

SCHEDULE AND ASSIGNMENTS

Class 1: Overview of the Civil Law and Common Law Systems

 Chase, et al., Civil Litigation in Comparative Context, pp. 1-15, 25-50

 Goodman, The Evolving Law of Document Production in Japanese Civil Procedure: Context,
Culture, and Community, 33 Brooklyn journal of International Law 125, pp. 127-131 (2007)

Class 2: Structure of the Legal Profession in Common Law and Civil Law systems – U.S.,
Germany, and Japan

 Chase, et al., Civil Procedure in Comparative Context, pp. 106-116,132-152

 Germany

 Attorney Discipline case, Case #2126 of 2005 (Concurring opinion J. Tahara)

Class 3: Court Organization – Germany, Japan, Constitutional and International Courts

 Chase, et al., Civil Procedure in Comparative Context, pp. 106-116,132-152

 Apple and Deyling, A Primer on the Civil Law System, (Federal Judicial Center), pp. 29 -31

2
Civil Litigation in Comparative Context B544 | Winter 2012
Goodman

 http://www.courts.go.jp/english/system/system.html#02_2 (Judicial Administration through

Summary Courts)

 German Courts

 German Constitutional Court

Class 4: Service of Process – Initiation of Litigation

 Chase, et al., Civil Procedure in Comparative Context, pp. 164-165, 169-174, 176-184

 Service of Process abroad generally

 Service of Process, Germany

 Service of Process, Japan

 2011 amendment of Japan Civil Procedure Code re: Jurisdiction of Japanese Courts

 Bangston v. Toyota, 889 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 1989)

Class 5: The Trial Stage – Trial vs. Plenary Proceedings – evidence rules in general -the Players =
Judges and lawyers and experts – burden of proof

 Chase, et al., Civil Procedure in Comparative Context, pp. 241-245, 253-256, 258-259, 260-275

 Greenlaw v. United States (Parts I and II)

 Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, Souter J. opinion for Court

 Dodson, Comparative Convergences in Pleading Standards, 158 U. PA.L. Rev. 441 (2010),

 Apple and Deyling, A Primer on the Civil Law System, (Federal Judicial Center), pp. 26 -31

Class 6: Obtaining evidence from the other side – discovery vs. production

 Chase, et al., Civil Procedure in Comparative Context, pp. 214-240

 Germany/US

 Japan

 Monday, June 14, 2010, Marcus on American Exceptionalism in Procedure

3
Civil Litigation in Comparative Context B544 | Winter 2012
Goodman

 FCC v. AT&T

Class 7: The Appeal Stage – First and Second level appeal

 Chase, et al., Civil Procedure in Comparative Context, pp. 327–335, 345–360, 362–367

 Knowles v. Mirzayance (Parts I and III)

 Goodman, Japan’s New Civil Procedure Code: Has it Fostered a Rule of Law Dispute
Resolution Mechanism? 29 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 511 at pp. 549-550, 556-558

Class 8: Collective or Representative Actions

 Chase, et al., Civil Procedure in Comparative Context, pp. 390–410, 421–434

 European Commission, 4 February 2011, Commission Staff Working Document Public

Consultation: Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress

Class 9: Preclusion

 Chase, et al., Civil Procedure in Comparative Context, pp. 435-441, 447-455, 532-537

 Parklane Hosiery v. Shore, 439 US 322 (1979) (Part 1)

 Decision of Supreme Court of Japan on recognition of California judgment for compensatory and
punitive damages, Case No. 1993(O)No.1761 (7/11/1997)

 Hoffman v. Krieg

Class 10: Stare Decisis and Convergence?

 Chase, et al., Civil Procedure in Comparative Context, pp. 155-163

 Citizens United v. FEC, (2010) (Kennedy opinion Part III C and D)