[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 163 (Friday, November 15, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 14, 2013

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2655, the 
misleadingly-named ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.'' This legislation 
would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to 
reinstate a previous, failed version of the rule that was in place from 
1983-1993.
  Rule 11 allows for the imposition of sanctions on the plaintiff in a 
civil case if it is determined that a claim lacks sufficient evidence. 
Currently, Rule 11 allows judges to exercise discretion in determining 
when to impose these sanctions. This bill, H.R. 2655, mirrors the 
policy from 1983-1993, when Rule 11 was amended to mandate that 
sanctions be automatically applied regardless of the specific 
circumstance of a Rule 11 violation. This policy erodes judicial 
discretion by forcing judges to apply sanctions in every instance of a 
violation regardless of the merits. The effect of this change was--and 
would be under H.R. 2655--disastrous for our judicial system and 
victims alike. For this reason, the Judicial Conference, the American 
Bar Association, and the American Association for Justice all strongly 
oppose this legislation.
  As the Judicial Conference Chairs wrote to Judiciary Committee 
Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. in July, from 1983-1993, the ``. . . 
mandatory sanctions provision quickly became a tool of abuse in civil 
litigation. Seeking to use mandatory sanctions to their advantage, 
aggressive lawyers filed motions for Rule 11 sanctions in response to 
virtually every filing in a civil case. Much time and money was spent 
in Rule 11 battles that had everything to do with strategic 
gamesmanship and little to do with underlying claims.'' The Judicial 
Conference also points out that the 1993 rule changes that corrected 
this misguided policy ``. . . followed years of examination and were 
made on the Judicial Conference's strong recommendation, with the 
Supreme Court's approval, and after congressional review.''
  Unfortunately, we are wasting precious legislative days in this 
Congress re-litigating this already-solved issue. All empirical 
evidence from the 1983-1993 existence of the mandatory sanctions points 
to increased litigation costs and a distraction from the administering 
of justice.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2655.

                          ____________________