Accurate or not, this belief often leads defendants to seek removal. Favorable procedural rules. A defendant may wish to remove a case to federal court if federal procedural rules offer it a tactical advantage over the plaintiff. Federal pleadings standards, for example, may be more demanding than their state counterparts, or state-court deadlines may be modified or reset after removal to federal court.
A more favorable venue. While initial removal is typically to the federal court located in the district where the state court action is pending, after removal, the defendant may be able to transfer the action to a district court in another state. This type of direct transfer is unavailable in state court. Federal court may also provide a better forum to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act or to consolidate the action with a previously filed federal court suit.
More favorable rules of discovery. While discovery rules in federal and state courts vary widely, most do not impact the decision to remove. However, some specific differences may influence a defendant's desire to have its case heard in federal court. For example, expert discovery in New York State Court litigation is significantly more restrictive than in federal court. A defendant who wants the opportunity to depose the plaintiff's expert before trial may want to consider federal court as a venue.
Further, obtaining non-party discovery across several states is relatively simple in federal courts. In contrast, states often require the more laborious practice of petitioning the court where the action is pending for an order authorizing non-party discovery.
As trials per judge diminished, so did the amount of time judges spent on the bench. In , the mean total hours on the bench per district court judgeship was , less than two hours per day, a reduction of 46 percent. The nature of the civil cases being tried has also changed. Professors Marc Galanter and Angela Frozena report that in , more than 50 percent of all trials involved tort claims, and 20 percent involved contract claims. By , less than 12 percent of the trials involved tort claims, and contract claims comprised 18 percent.
Conversely, civil rights cases accounted for less than 1 percent of the trials in , but they constituted more than 30 percent of the trials in , and 27 percent of the trials in Historically, it has been one of the busiest courts and has been known for handling many important and high-profile civil and criminal cases.
Both courts benefit from a hard-working group of senior judges there are 15 in the SDNY and 14 in the EDNY who add experience, depth, and capacity to each district. Consistent with the national data, there has been a significant decrease in the number of trials completed in both the EDNY and the SDNY as measured using the evidence-based standard see Appendix 3, next page. Slightly more than 15 years later, in , there were just 98 jury trials completed in the EDNY 57 civil and 41 criminal and jury trials completed in the SDNY 76 civil and 55 criminal , 64 representing a decline of 56 percent in the EDNY and 55 percent in the SDNY from to In , there were juries selected in the EDNY By , the figures were In , the numbers were down again: juries 8.
Note, however, that the per-judge calculations exclude the trial contributions made by senior judges. Assuming conservatively that senior judges try cases at the minimum level of activity to which they must commit i. The data concerning state court trial activity are neither as comprehensive nor as current and consistent as the federal court data.
The leading resource for state court data is the National Center for State Courts. The state court database — which only goes back a few years, unlike the federal data — shows that in , 21 states, representing a significant portion of the country, reported data on total civil dispositions in courts of general jurisdiction, including the number of jury trials and bench trials.
Other large states reported low civil jury trial rates, including California 0. These outcomes were consistent with results from prior years. In , Alabama reported that 1. In , 20 states reported civil disposition data in courts of general jurisdiction. No state had a civil jury trial rate higher than 0.
In , 20 states reported civil disposition data. Only New York, separately discussed below, had a civil jury trial rate greater than 1 percent. Civil bench trials are also declining, except in those states still experiencing the effects of the mortgage crisis. For example, in , in states such as Pennsylvania 1. In criminal cases, the jury trial rates for four large states California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas during the last four years are set forth in Appendix 6 at right.
The jury trial disposition rate was less than 2 percent in all four states and less than 1 percent in California. Trials in felony cases typically occur more frequently than in cases involving misdemeanors, which is consistent with research suggesting that cases involving larger potential penalties are less likely to be resolved through plea bargaining. In , the most recent year for which comprehensive civil case statistics are available, the general jurisdiction courts of New York disposed of , civil cases.
There were also 1, bench trials, representing 0. Although tort cases accounted for 36 percent of the total civil dispositions, they represented 84 percent of the cases tried to a jury 1, out of 2, Still, the jury trial rate for tort cases as a group was slightly less than 3 percent. Medical malpractice suits had the highest jury trial rate 5. The data for criminal cases in New York are both more current and complete than the data for civil cases in New York. But, once again, as depicted in Appendix 7 next page , a picture of limited trial activity emerges with the jury trial disposition rate hovering around 3 percent or less.
Consistent with other states, a slightly higher trial rate occurs in felony cases. Unlike most states, where criminal trials outnumber civil trials, there are significantly more civil trials than criminal trials in New York.
This differential arises in part by differences in case mix between New York and Connecticut and New Jersey. Deciding where to file is not always an easy task. Another difference between State and Federal Court is that Federal Judges are appointed by the President of the United States while State Court Judges are elected by the people of their local district.
This does not necessarily mean one side or another would prefer a particular Court, but for the most part, Defendants tend to prefer Federal Court while Plaintiffs tend to prefer State Court when all the factors above are considered.
If you have a question about your civil case and which Court system it could or should be in, please give us a call for a free consultation at
0コメント