Released 1/1/18 at The Stanford Law Review | Tags: Staff
Class actions, in which named parties bring claims on behalf of many different people, are the most famous kind of aggregate proceeding. But courts have found numerous other ways of aggregating disputes, including bankruptcy and trustee suits, statistical sampling, and parens patriae actions by states on behalf of certain citizens. What all these processes share is that a single party or proceeding binds numerous parties to the outcome of the proceeding, even if some of those parties never actually participate in the proceeding. The idea is simple: Consolidating many similar claims in a single proceeding would help agencies process claims more quickly, efficiently, and fairly. But aggregation presents unique challenges in the administrative context with respect to agencies that dole out entitlements. Such agencies, of course, have limited resources. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the authority to aggregate entitlement claims is thereby armed with the power to prioritize how those resources will be spent—whether in line with the agency’s own priorities or not. NVLSP executive director Bart Stichman is quoted.