Group #6 Civil Litigation
• Leadership without Ethics: Reimagining Plaintiff Leadership in Mass Tort Litigation
Lauren Godshall, Tulane Law School
Mass torts cases take up a massive swath of the nation's federal court docket, yet are governed by little to no substantive procedural laws. Instead, a host of regular practices for multi-district litigation management have emerged through repetition. One such practice is the selection of a “Plaintiff Steering Committee,” a small group of extremely wealthy and experienced plaintiff attorneys that control and direct the litigation from initiation through settlement or other resolution. The “PSC” is extremely powerful and membership on a PSC is often arduously pursued. However, there are no rules dictating PSC management of the litigation, unlike those that control class action counsel selection and court approval. There are no ethical duties owed by any PSC member to any individual plaintiff in the litigation – other than to a PSC member’s own clients – if they even have any. My paper will explain the development of the PSC in MDL practice and will focus on the lack of any ethical duties owed by those PSC members to the plaintiffs in general, positing that PSCs as they currently exist in MDLs are more akin to third-party financers of litigation that front expenses and demand reimbursement. I will argue that this model harms individual plaintiffs and robs them of their representation in their own suits.
• Rent-to-Own Your Pet? The Rise of Rent-to-Own Agreements in the Service Industry and the Implications for Low-Income Consumers
Carrie Floyd, University of Michigan Law School
Created in the 1980s, and in response to the consumer protection regulations created in the late 1960s, the “rent-to-own” or “rental-purchase” industry has exploded in the last several decades. These agreements purport to allow consumers to lease personal property, often monthly, and to “purchase” the property at the conclusion of a set period with a final monthly payment. Because these agreements are structured as “leases,” the monthly payment amount or lease period is typically not regulated by consumer protection or usury statutes. Such “rent-to-own” agreements may appear convenient to consumers, yet consumers typically pay up to four times more than they would pay if they had purchased the property with cash or traditional financing. Traditionally, these agreements were most often available for large household purchases, such as furniture and home appliances. In the past decade, however, the industry has expanded into many new and perplexing areas, such as pet purchases, vehicle repairs, medical equipment, jewelry, electronics, and even eyeglasses. At the same time, the industry has expanded virtually, allowing out-of-state internet-based finance companies to partner with retailers and service providers across state lines to evade state usury limits.
This paper will explore the rise of “rent-to-own" agreements in the service and non-traditional purchase industries and how this industry has integrated itself into the growing fintech industry. This paper will attempt to understand the impact of these agreements on low-income or subprime consumers and will propose potential policy and litigation solutions to address these issues.