Comments on: Senate Passes Class-Action Reform

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:42:42 +0000

Thus, the critics say, the law may create a "Catch-22" in which class-action plaintiffs find both federal and state courthouse doors locked. It could lead to a ban on some nationwide class-actions; it wouldn't prevent statewide ones.

By: Jon Koppenhoefer

Jon Koppenhoefer — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:19:42 +0000

Gee, in a world where corporations and their stockholders had only money in mind, I suppose class-action suits would be necessary.

But not in this world.

By: Rip & Read Blogger Podcast

Rip & Read Blogger Podcast — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:57:35 +0000

Rip & Read Blogger Podcast for February 11, 2005
Here's what I ripped and read in my Podcast today:

Class Action Reform

James Joyner in Outside the Beltway has some good coverage of the Senate's action yesterday to pass class action reform. The change seems simple, but it does have many impli...

By: Rip & Read Blogger Podcast

Rip & Read Blogger Podcast — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:55:39 +0000

Rip & Read Blogger Podcast for February 11, 2005
Here's what I ripped and read in my Podcast today:

Class Action Reform

James Joyner in Outside the Beltway has some good coverage of the Senate's action yesterday to pass class action reform. The change seems simple, but it does have many impli...

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:11:21 +0000

Kent,

The problem with a non-class action suit is that it likely wouldn't be worth it for an attorney to take it on a contingency basis. Plus, if there is actually a large class, one would think that there would be an advantage to the corporation to dispose of it all at once rather than piecemeal.

The problem is to figure out a way to protect legitimately agrieved plaintiffs, ensure that defendants get a fair shake rather than a stacked jury, and to figure out a way to fix the system so that injured parties, not attorneys, get most of the money.

By: Kent

Kent — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:07:01 +0000

Obviously, taking away the ability to sue at all is something that even the most hard-hearted capitalist would oppose.

Hardly. You can still file a non-class action suit. Which may be the best reform of all.

By: denise

denise — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:49:08 +0000

McGehee -- Yeah, any lawyer understands that "diversity cases" refers to diversity of citizenship. Never thought about a non-lawyer being confused, but it makes sense.

Bryan -- At $75K, a diversity lawsuit may be brought in federal court, but it is not mandatory.

My understanding is there has been a real problem of forum shopping in these class actions because there are 1 or 2 states that encourage having them brought there. Not a good policy.

As for Sam Heldman's argument that federal courts are so swamped and this is a tactic to give them short shrift, I think in most states the federal courts have a smaller caseload than the state courts, and it is much more likely that a case will get a thoughtful (even written) ruling in federal court than in state court. Granted, in a lot of cases that means a state court will allow a matter to go to trial rather than take the time and resources necessary to give full consideration to a defendant's dispositive motions. But there's nothing inherently unfair to plaintiffs about missing the chance to take a case to trial that shouldn't go to trial.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:22:38 +0000

It appears, then, that you were using "diversity" here in a way that most of us laypeople generally wouldn't think of without more information.

Just sayin'.

By: Ipse Dixit

Ipse Dixit — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:17:48 +0000

Tortious Conduct I have consistently opposed the President's proposal to 'federalize' tort reform because I believe that the principle of federalism is...

By: Secure Liberty

Secure Liberty — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:58:12 +0000

Class Action Reform
This is terrific news. (H/T OTB) The Senate voted overwhelmingly today to shift many class-action lawsuits from state courts to federal courts, handing President Bush and his supporters in the business world a major legislative triumph. The 72-to-26 vo...

By: Running Scared

Running Scared — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:22:34 +0000

Tort Reform Starts
There are a lot of details in a very long, complicated piece of legislation for people to pour over before we can determine if this is true, needed reform to the legal system, a giveaway to large corporate interests or, as is so often the case, a lit...

By: Sam Heldman

Sam Heldman — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:49:24 +0000

Leaving aside the political question whether the legislation was "necessary" (I think it wasn't), it was "necessary" for its proponents because (a) under existing law, generally speaking the claims of individual class members can't be "aggregated" (i.e., added up) to meet the $75k amount-in-controversy requirement, but instead you must look at each individual's claim separately for amount-in-controversy purposes; and (b) in general, the statute regarding diversity jurisdiction has heretofore required "complete diversity" -- i.e., that there is no plaintiff who lives in the same state as any defendant -- for federal jurisdiction. This changes that rule, to a sort of "minimal diversity" rule -- it's enough if any plaintiff (even absent class member) lives in a state different from any defendant. In this and other ways, this legislation really does change things.

By: MNPundit

MNPundit — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:36:10 +0000

"Obviously, taking away the ability to sue at all is something that even the most hard-hearted capitalist would oppose."

Kevin Drum doesn't quite see it that way...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_02/005631.php

By: Political Animal

Political Animal — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:58:04 +0000

Classless Action
CLASSLESS ACTION....The Senate passed a bill today that moves many class action suits to federal court, and generally speaking I don't have a problem with it. It doesn't apply to cases in which the members of the class and the...

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:14:51 +0000

Art.III, Sec. 2:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. "

I thought the dollar amount was in the Constitution. I was getting it confused with Amendment VII: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. "

The dollar amounts for diversity cases were established with the Judiciary Act of 1789 and have been raised over time. Apparently, the threshhold is now $75,000. Still, almost any class action meets that.