[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




H.R. 860, THE MULTIDISTRICT, MULTIPARTY, MULTIFORUM TRIAL JURISDICTION 
                              ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                    HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 6, 2001

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the 
Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2001.
  This legislation addresses two important issues in the world of 
complex, multidistrict litigation. Section 2 of the bill would reverse 
the effects of the 1998 Supreme Court decision in the so-called Lexecon 
case. It would simply amend the multidistrict litigation statute by 
explicitly allowing a transferee court to retain jurisdiction over 
referred cases for trial, or refer them to other districts, as it sees 
fit. In fact, section 2 only codifies what had constituted ongoing 
judicial practice for nearly 30 years prior to the Lexecon decision.
  Section 3 addresses a particular specie of complex litigation--so-
called `disaster' cases, such as those involving airline accidents. The 
language set forth in my bill is a revised version of a concept which, 
beginning in the 101st Congress, has been supported by the Department 
of Justice, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, two previous 
Democratic Congress, and one previous Republican Congress. Section 3 
will help to reduce litigation costs as well as the likelihood of forum 
shopping in single-accident mass tort cases. All plaintiffs in these 
cases will ordinarily be situated identically, making the case for 
consolidation of their actions especially compelling. These types of 
disasters--with their hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs and numerous 
defendants--have the potential to impair the orderly administration of 
justice in federal courts for an extended period of time.
  Mr. Speaker, during the eleventh-hour negotiations with the Senate 
last term, I offered to make three changes in an effort to generate 
greater support for the bill. As a show of good faith, I incorporate 
those changes in the bill I am introducing today. They consist of the 
following:
  First, a plaintiff must allege at least $150,000 in damages (up from 
$75,000) to file in U.S. district court.
  Second, an exception to the minimum diversity rule is created: A U.S. 
district court may not hear any case in which a ``substantial 
majority'' of plaintiffs and the ``primary'' defendants are citizens of 
the same state; and in which the claims asserted are governed 
``primarily'' by the laws of that same state. In other words, only 
state courts may hear such cases.
  Third, the choice-of-law section will be stricken. It confers too 
much discretionary authority on a federal judge to select the relevant 
law that will apply in a given case.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, this legislation speaks to process, fairness, 
and judicial efficiency. It will not interfere with jury verdicts or 
compensation rates for litigators. I therefore urge my colleagues to 
join me in a bipartisan effort to support the Multidistrict, 
Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 2001.

                          ____________________