Senate OKs Limit on Class Action Lawsuits

[G_j]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/02/10/national/w123626S32.DTL

Senate OKs Limit on Class Action Lawsuits

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, February 10, 2005

(02-10) 12:48 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Senate on Thursday gave President Bush the first legislative victory of his second term by approving legislation to help shield businesses from major class action lawsuits.

Under the legislation, long sought by big business, large multistate class action lawsuits like the ones that have been brought against tobacco companies could no longer be heard in small state courts. Such courts have handed out multimillion-dollar verdicts.

Instead, the cases would be heard by federal judges, who have not proven as open to those type of lawsuits.

The Senate passed the bill 72-26. The House is expected to take it up next week and send it to President Bush for his signature.
..more..

+++++++++++++++++++++
concerning this legislation:

Public Citizen Press

Feb. 9, 2005

Senate on Track to Lock Consumers Out of Courthouse, Invite More Market
Deception

Statement of Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook

By defeating amendments that would make the class action bill fair to
consumers, the Senate made it exceedingly clear that its allegiance lies
with banks, credit card companies, drug manufacturers, big insurance
companies and other major corporations that fund campaigns and don’t
want to be held accountable for wrongdoing.

The result of this legislation, if enacted into law, will be more abuse and deception of consumers by unscrupulous businesses, because consumers will be locked out of the courthouse.

This bill creates a classic Catch-22 for consumers. Congress will be telling consumers that class actions based on state law must be heard in federal court, but the doors to the federal courthouse will be locked. Federal judges typically don’t allow such suits to go forward; they view them as unmanageable because they are based on a variety of different state consumer protection laws. The Feinstein- Bingaman amendment would have allowed federal judges to hear these cases, but its defeat ensures that corporate lobbyists will achieve their desired results: the elimination of virtually all class actions of significance. This will occur because there is no federal consumer protection law consumers can use to seek remedies.

If this bill is enacted, as it appears it will be, corporate wrongdoers will have a green light to lie, cheat and steal without fear of being held to account. The phrase “consumer beware” will once again be the law of the marketplace.


http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1874 .

For more information on class actions,
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/class_action /

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Ah yes the corporations are singing hallelujah

and hossanah as we write

[Emboldened Chimp]

2. The Dems that voted for this shot themselves in the foot

Rove is going after the lawyers who fund their campaigns. Nice going, you boobs.

[Mel]

14. ding ding ding

you got it! They will rue the day and you know what, it really does put a mark up for the argument that there's not that much difference between the two plutocratic parties.

[G_j]

17. this vote in particular was a vote for corporations

& against the little guy. So, yea "plutocracy" applies here.

[Ian David]

3. Make sure the folks in Minnesota just exposed to asbestos know this

Oh, and the people who were gassed by that train wreck.

[Skidmore]

4. Okay, which Dems sold their souls

for a few shekels of silver? What possesses these people? They sell out the people over and over?

[BRLIB]

11. Obama and Landrieu are two.....

Rising star????

[progressiveandproud]

15. I keep wondering the same...

...what possesses these sell-out Dems?

It is now clear to me: the label DINO applies to many, many more than Joe Lieberman. (Of course, RINO applies to most Republicans: they are Neocon Traitors, not Repubs at all.)

[sunnystarr]

5. The question I'd like answered is:

Who are these 8 Democrats?

Eight Democrats were sponsors of the bill, leaving the rest with no way to block it.

We really need to know which Dems are working against the American people.

oops another typo and edit lol

[Ian David]

7. I bet most pollution and industrial accidents are in "rural areas"

More people foolishly voting against their own best interests.

And when environmental disasters occur, FEMA will pay for it by taxking the blue states.

[PunkPop]

6. Can't this be challenged in court?

I'm no legal expert. Isn't there some basis on which this can be challenged in court?

[G_j]

8. *Senate Roll Call:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00009

YEAs 72
NAYs 26
Not Voting 2

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---72

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---26
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2
Santorum (R-PA)
Sununu (R-NH)

[PunkPop]

9. Barack Obama continues to unimpress!

[G_j]

12. that's for sure! n/t

[Skidmore]

10. Yeas are some of the usual suspects and

some unexpected ones too. Dodd? Lieberman, Landrieu, Salazar don't surprise me. Note, Obama is in there to.

[G_j]

13. Dem YEAs (& Jeffords)

Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. My Senator -Nelson- Voted No...

[Bake]

16. Legal opinion.

First, I practiced in class actions for about 8 years. Now I work in asbestos and other mass tort litigation.

(a) Somebody mentioned asbestos, above. The Supreme Court has said that you can't certify a class of asbestos claimants, they're not similar enough (and the Court was correct). The leading case on this is the Amchem decision. So what you have is hundreds of thousands of individual suits, or in some states, "mass actions" where hundreds or even thousands of individual claimants are joined in a single lawsuit. In federal court, these generally go to the "MDL" (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation) which assigns the cases to a handful of federal courts that are equipped to deal with them.

(b) The Senate action today is probably unconstitutional, since the Congress has no power to tell state courts what they can and cannot hear. There is long-standing Supreme Court precedent that a state court has the power to adjudicate a nationwide class.

(c) Even if this bullshit is allowed to stand, plaintiffs' lawyers will figure out a way around it. One way: file a class action in state court, based on state law, and seek to certify only a STATEWIDE class. Do that in multiple jurisdictions. It will cost the corporate defendants even more to defend.

How do I "know" this would work? Because Congress tried this before, with the so-called Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, or as the corporate types called it, the Anti-Bill Lerach Act. Lerach, then of the Milberg Weiss firm, was and probably still is the leading plaintiffs' securities litigator in the country. So Congress and the lobbyists tried to craft the PSLRA just to put Bill out of business.

Bill simply started filing a lot of statewide class actions based not on federal securities law, but on state blue-sky laws, which generally contain the same anti-fraud provisions as federal law. He's still in business.

Bake, Esq.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Did You See How Florida Lawyers Got Around The Absurd Cap

On Contginency Fees In Malpractice Cases?

[Bake]

20. No - how?

I think it is hilarious that they always want to squeeze those damn plaintiffs' lawyer contingency fees. NOBODY bitches about how much the corporate defendants pay their lawyers ...

Bake

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. The Wording Of The Amendment Allows The Plaintiff

To Sign A Waiver Of Their Constitutional Right To Have The Fee They Pay Their Attorney Capped If They Win....

I hope I explained it right...

My friend who is a trial lawyer told me that at my mom's birthday party...

The Pugs want to take away a person's right to sue because the courts are the last place the little guy can get his grievances addressed provided he has a good lawyer...

[sandnsea]

24. Question

Two aspects of the bill. 2/3 of the plaintiffs must live in the state. AND/OR the corporation must be incorporated in that state. So wouldn't multiple statewide cases not work because a corporation is only chartered in one state. Doesn't this eliminate possibility (c)?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I Think You Sue Where The Action Happened Not Where The Defendant Is

Chartered...

[sandnsea]

26. Now, it's federal court

Unless both plaintiffs and defendant are in the same state, it's federal court. That's what I understood Harry Reid to say today. He said 58% of corporations are chartered in Delaware, so most class actions will automatically be taken out of the originating state. Today's law changed where these cases are filed completely. Which seems to me it also changes the law that is applied and will eliminate the state law in cases and apply federal law. It would have to, wouldn't it?

I don't know, I'm just trying to figure it all out.

[G_j]

22. why would any D vote for this after the amendments were defeated?

the only reason I can think of is being beholdin' to big biz.
Am I wrong?

[Itsthetruth]

23. Democrats Sure Not Acting Like An Opposition Party

That's just speculation on my part. However, the Democratic Senate "opposition" to Bush's policies doesn't seem to be much of an opposition at all.

The Senate vote has certainly further demoralized those who hoped Senate Democrats put up a serious oppositional fight against Rice and Gonzalez. The Democrats refusal to organized a filibuster to stop their nominations were a further sign of how weak the "resistance" to Bush is among Senate Democrats.

Some suggested at the time that Senate Democrats didn't block those nominations because they wanted to save their ammunition to stop bills like the one that just passed! Looks like they are shooting blanks or simply forgot to pull the trigger.