TheWeekInCongress.com
Week Ending April 22, 2005
HR 1038 to allow a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for trial, and for other purposes.
BRIEF
The bill would allow a Federal District court to retain jurisdiction over a case referred to it when it is time to decide on liability and damages.
The example given is a plane crash that involves victims and therefore claims from many States. The Multi District Litigation Panel of seven judges decide which court would hear the pre-trial action. Many cases would have been filed in several courts-including State courts- but all could be brought together in a District court for pre-trial hearings after which that District court would be expected to remand the case to the original court for trial. The pre-trial courts, however, often kept the case.
Things changed, though, in a case known as the Lexecon case. The company, Lexecon, asked the Panel to transfer the case to a certain district court. The Panel did and Lexecon lost. Lexecon appealed and the Supreme court found in Lexecon’s favor stating that the District court should have transferred the case to the original court.
The bill reverses procedures back to where they were before the Lexecon decision.
The bill raised concerns of the opposition that the effort is to direct such cases solely to District courts thereby keeping them under Federal judge jurisdiction as is the case with the recently passed Class Action Lawsuit bill. Federal judges are appointed.
Sponsor: Representative James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI-5th)
Vote: Passed House by voice vote.
Cost to the taxpayers: No discernible cost.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.
MORE INFORMATION
Section 1. Short Title. The Act may be cited as the `Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2005.'
Section 2. Multidistrict Litigation. Section 2 affirms the authority of a transferee court to retain jurisdiction under the general multidistrict litigation statute over district and State actions initially referred to it for trial purposes, `in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.' Similarly, Sec. 2 also specifies that a transferee court which retains jurisdiction over referred actions for trial may only make determinations regarding compensatory damages if it is convenient to the parties and witnesses and promotes the interest of justice.
Section. 3. Technical Amendments to Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002. Section 3 clarifies that transferred actions brought under the `disaster' litigation statute (enacted as part of the `21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act') may be retained by the transferee court for determinations of liability and punitive damages. The determination of non-punitive (i.e., compensatory) damages may be retained by the transferee court only if it is convenient to the parties and witnesses and promotes the interest of justice.
Section 3 also prescribes the terms by which a determination governing liability, choice of law, and punitive damages may be appealed.
Section 4. Effective Date. H.R. 1038 applies two effective dates to different provisions of the bill. The provisions of Sec. 2 will apply to any civil action pending on or brought on or after the date of enactment of H.R. 1038.
Section 3 applies to `disaster' cases that are addressed by Sec. 1020 of the Department of Justice authorization statute from the 107th Congress. The provision is therefore deemed to take effect as though it were a part of 11020. This means that 3 of the bill applies to any relevant civil action if the accident giving rise to the cause of action occurred on or after the 90th day after the date of enactment of the `21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,' which was November 2, 2002.
In conclusion, the Committee notes that the text of H.R. 1038 is identical to that of H.R. 1768 from the 108th Congress, which the House passed under suspension of the Rules by a roll call vote of 418-0 on March 24, 2004.
I opposed reporting H.R. 1038, the `Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2005,' to the full House at the March 9, 2005 Judiciary Committee markup because I object to the process under which the bill was considered and because I object to certain substantive provisions of the bill.
I object to the process because the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property did not conduct a hearing on H.R. 1038. The Subcommittee reported the bill by voice vote on March 3, 2005 and the full Committee markup was held less than one week later. Those who support H.R. 1038 contend that the bill did not warrant a hearing in light of other hearings and markups on identical or related bills from previous Congresses. The last hearing on a prior version of this bill was in the 106th Congress. However, subsequent versions of the bill have undergone substantial changes worthy of examination. At the hearing on this bill during the 106th Congress the Subcommittee heard testimony from a witness who expressed serious concerns about the bill's expansion of Federal jurisdiction. 1
[Footnote] These concerns have never been addressed. I believe a hearing should have been held in this Congress to evaluate the revised bill and to determine whether the revisions remedied the serious federalism issues raised by the prior iteration of this bill or made them worse.
[Footnote 1: See Hearing on H.R. 2112 Before the House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, 106th Cong. (1999) (statement of Brian Wolfman, Staff Attorney, Public Citizen).]
In addition to my concerns about process, I also object to certain substantive provisions of H.R. 1038. A prior version of this bill, H.R. 860 was partially passed into law in the `21st Century Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act,' 2
[Footnote] codified as Sec. 11020 of the DoJ bill. Despite some adjustments 3
[Footnote] , I believe Sec. 11020 inappropriately expands the jurisdiction of the Federal courts by infringing on the traditional jurisdiction of the state courts with are better equipped to handle personal-injury and wrongful death cases. H.R. 1038 compounds that problem by insuring that the transferee court can retain the consolidated cased for determination of liability and punitive damages. Expanding Federal jurisdiction will add an additional burden to the Federal courts at a time when our Federal courts are already overcrowded and backlogged. Moreover, in light of passage (also without the benefit of a timely hearing) of S. 5, the `Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,' 4
[Footnote] which steers most class actions and mass tort cases into Federal court, I believe H.R. 1038 will exacerbate the strain already imposed on the Federal courts. While the bill's proponents maintain that the bill will increase judicial efficiency for the Federal courts, a proposition with which I disagree, it would do so by encroaching on the jurisdiction of state courts and states' rights and would do so at the expense of accident victims. I think we have lost sight of the fact that the courts are for the convenience of litigants, not judges and administrators.
[Footnote 2: Pub. L. No. 107-273.]
[Footnote 3: For example, Sec. 11020 creates Federal jurisdiction for civil actions arising out of a single accident that results in the death or injury of 75 or more persons when specified conditions are met. Under the original version of this bill Federal district courts were authorized to adjudicate cases arising out of a single accident where at least 25 persons were killed or injured.]
[Footnote 4: The Class Action Fairness Act was signed into law on February 18, 2005. See Pub. L. No. 109-2]
While some may characterize this bill as a `non-controversial' piece of
legislation that should be quickly moved through the legislative process, I
believe that the landscape has changed with the passage of the Class Action
Fairness Act. Accordingly, I believe that we failed to properly exercise our
responsibility as Members of the Judiciary Committee by not conducting a
more extensive review of this bill. Consequently, while I favor some of the
provisions of the bill, I oppose reporting H.R. 1038 to the full House.
Melvin L. Watt.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com.
No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.