Senate Takes Up Class-Action Restrictions
Consumer Groups Try to Soften Measure Forcing Lawsuits Into Federal Courts
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
From Washington Post:
Senate Takes Up Class-Action Restrictions
Consumer Groups Try to Soften Measure Forcing Lawsuits Into Federal Courts
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 8, 2005; Page A04
The Senate began debate yesterday on a measure that would revise rules on class-action lawsuits -- a longtime goal of President Bush and his business supporters -- as consumer groups urgently tried to garner support for amendments they said would make an objectionable bill somewhat more palatable.
Consumer groups, plaintiffs' lawyers and many state attorneys general said they would prefer to defeat the Class Action Fairness Act, which would send many class-action cases out of state courts and into the federal system, which historically is less sympathetic to the claims.
But solid support by the Republican leadership in both chambers, combined with backing from several influential Democrats in the Senate, has opponents' backs against the wall. Acknowledging that the bill is on a fast track for passage, opponents said yesterday that they are lobbying for amendments to help ensure that class-action cases are not dismissed by federal judges.
While the bill has garnered the attention of powerful interests, with potentially large consequences for business and consumers, this week's debate is turning on somewhat arcane provisions of law.
Supporters, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have long maintained that class-action lawsuits are waged amid a patchwork of state laws. The result, they said, is an irrational system in which lawyers shop for sympathetic local venues, regardless of whether that is the most logical place for a case to be heard, and in which there is little consistency in awards. The bill would send cases with plaintiffs in multiple states into the federal system.
The problem, opponents say, is that federal courts are overburdened, and often disinclined to hear such cases. Frequently, when presented with a case in which laws from different states might apply and in some cases contradict one another, judges will refuse to "certify" that a valid class-action claim exists and the case is thrown out.
... more at linked article
I would still encourage everyone to be following this issue. It looks like (as noted in the article) this "reform" is fast tracked, and we may actually see some sort of action here. This should be a good thing, after years of inaction, and unwillingness by Democrats to let any such reforms be enacted.
I hope this is just the start of real, serious, reform in the TORTS area, as the drain that on the economy thanks to all of the lawsuits that are filed each year is costing us all. It costs us jobs, when employers are sued out business. Costs us higher prices for goods and services, when manufacturers and service providers have to charge higher prices to pay higher liability insurance costs. And costs everyone better products and better services which might be available if the fear of lawsuits wasn't hanging over the head of those that could bring such products and services to market.
Senate Takes Up Class-Action Restrictions
Consumer Groups Try to Soften Measure Forcing Lawsuits Into Federal Courts
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 8, 2005; Page A04
The Senate began debate yesterday on a measure that would revise rules on class-action lawsuits -- a longtime goal of President Bush and his business supporters -- as consumer groups urgently tried to garner support for amendments they said would make an objectionable bill somewhat more palatable.
Consumer groups, plaintiffs' lawyers and many state attorneys general said they would prefer to defeat the Class Action Fairness Act, which would send many class-action cases out of state courts and into the federal system, which historically is less sympathetic to the claims.
But solid support by the Republican leadership in both chambers, combined with backing from several influential Democrats in the Senate, has opponents' backs against the wall. Acknowledging that the bill is on a fast track for passage, opponents said yesterday that they are lobbying for amendments to help ensure that class-action cases are not dismissed by federal judges.
While the bill has garnered the attention of powerful interests, with potentially large consequences for business and consumers, this week's debate is turning on somewhat arcane provisions of law.
Supporters, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have long maintained that class-action lawsuits are waged amid a patchwork of state laws. The result, they said, is an irrational system in which lawyers shop for sympathetic local venues, regardless of whether that is the most logical place for a case to be heard, and in which there is little consistency in awards. The bill would send cases with plaintiffs in multiple states into the federal system.
The problem, opponents say, is that federal courts are overburdened, and often disinclined to hear such cases. Frequently, when presented with a case in which laws from different states might apply and in some cases contradict one another, judges will refuse to "certify" that a valid class-action claim exists and the case is thrown out.
... more at linked article
I would still encourage everyone to be following this issue. It looks like (as noted in the article) this "reform" is fast tracked, and we may actually see some sort of action here. This should be a good thing, after years of inaction, and unwillingness by Democrats to let any such reforms be enacted.
I hope this is just the start of real, serious, reform in the TORTS area, as the drain that on the economy thanks to all of the lawsuits that are filed each year is costing us all. It costs us jobs, when employers are sued out business. Costs us higher prices for goods and services, when manufacturers and service providers have to charge higher prices to pay higher liability insurance costs. And costs everyone better products and better services which might be available if the fear of lawsuits wasn't hanging over the head of those that could bring such products and services to market.