Supreme Court Moot Court
University of Pittsburgh School of Law is pleased to be hosting a moot court argument to help David Frederick, a seasoned appellate litigator, prepare for an argument before the United States Supreme Court in Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Indy Mac MRS, Inc. (No. 13-640).
The advocate: David Frederick represents clients across a broad spectrum, principally in appellate courts. He has argued more than 70 appeals, including 41 in the Supreme Court, in every U.S. Court of Appeals, and in three state supreme courts. He has won cases in the United States Supreme Court nine years in a row. In the Supreme Court, he has represented individuals, investors, immigrants, classes of consumers, farmers, Native Americans, small corporations, trade associations, large companies, foreign governments, states (Alaska, Delaware, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont), and the United States.
A former law clerk to Justice Byron White and Judge Joseph Sneed, he graduated from the University of Texas School of Law (J.D., with honors); the University of Oxford (D.Phil.), where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and the University of Pittsburgh (B.A., summa cum laude), where he was a Truman Scholar. He served in the Department of Justice as Assistant to the Solicitor General (1996-2001) and as Counselor to the Inspector General (1995-1996)..
Tentative Schedule (subject to change):
- 12:30 – 1:30 p.m. – very brief introductions, followed by argument by David Frederick, with questions from the bench
- 1:30 – 2:00 p.m. – critique of Mr. Frederick’s argument by the bench
- 2:00 – 2:30 p.m. – question-and-answer session for students in the audience
Questioning Mr. Frederick during the argument and critiquing his performance will be the following scholars and practitioners acting as the Justices:
- Thomas Allen, partner, Reed Smith
- Deborah Brake, Professor of Law and Distinguished Faculty Scholar
- Robert Byer, partner, Duane Morris; former judge of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline
- Stephanie Dangel, Executive Director, Innovation Practice Institute; former U.S. Supreme Court law clerk to the late Justice Blackmun
- W. Thomas McGough, Jr., Chief Legal Officer and Executive Vice President, UPMC
- Rhonda Wasserman, Professor of Law and Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney Faculty Scholar
- Kim Watterson, partner, Reed Smith
Summary of the case as prepared by Jurist: The US Supreme Court granted certiorari . . . in Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS, Inc. to rule on the statute of limitations in class action suits. In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974) the court held that ‘the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.’ Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that ‘[i]n no event shall’ an action under § 11 of that Act ‘be brought ... more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the public, or under [§ 12](a)(2) ... more than three years after the sale.’ The question presented is: ‘Does the filing of a putative class action serve, under the American Pipe rule, to satisfy the three-year time limitation in § 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members?’ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that ‘American Pipe's tolling rule does not apply to the three-year statute of repose in Section 13.’