Interstate Consolidation: A Comparison of the ALI Project with the Uniform Transfer of Litigation Act (American law Institute Complex Litigation Project: A Symposium, In Memoriam Donald Theodore Trautman)
The Uniform Transfer of Litigation Act (UTLA) was undertaken for purposes simpler than the mass consolidation of multiparty, multiforum litigation. It seeks to create an effective tool that can be used to reduce some of the artificial barriers that tradition has erected around the sovereign separateness of the many different court systems in this country. The fact of separate sovereignty must be recognized, however, and to this end consent of both transferring and receiving courts is required. Within the consent requirement, transfer from the court system of one sovereign to the court system of another can improve on present practices in many settings. A court that lacks subject matter or personal jurisdiction can transfer rather than dismiss. An inconvenient court can transfer to a convenient court rather than invoke forum non conveniens or perhaps struggle on with the litigation. Should complementing federal legislation be enacted, transfer can work better than dismissal when supplemental jurisdiction is declined, or when a state court concludes that a dispute lies in exclusive federal jurisdiction. Of course an effective structure must address the incidental questions that arise when one sovereign's court system transfers jurisdiction, in whole or in part, to another sovereign's court system. Good answers to these questions are important. Clear answers are even more important. The answers given by the UTLA will be described below.
Cooper, Edward H. "Interstate Consolidation: A Comparison of the ALI Project with the Uniform Transfer of Litigation Act (American law Institute Complex Litigation Project: A Symposium, In Memoriam Donald Theodore Trautman)." La. L. Rev. 54, no. 4 (1994): 897-906.