[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27055-27056]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  MULTIDISTRICT, MULTIPARTY, MULTIFORUM TRIAL JURISDICTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 341, H.R. 2112.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2112) to amend title 28, United States Code, 
     to allow a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain 
     jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for 
     trial, and to provide for Federal jurisdiction of certain 
     multiparty, multiforum civil actions.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an 
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu 
thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Multidistrict Jurisdiction 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.

       Section 1407 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the third sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
     ``or ordered transferred to the transferee or other district 
     under subsection (i)'' after ``terminated''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), any action transferred 
     under this section by the panel may be transferred, for trial 
     purposes, by the judge or judges of the transferee district 
     to whom the action was assigned to the transferee or other 
     district in the interest of justice and for the convenience 
     of the parties and witnesses.
       ``(2) Any action transferred for trial purposes under 
     paragraph (1) shall be remanded by the panel for the 
     determination of compensatory damages to the district court 
     from which it was transferred, unless the court to which the 
     action has been transferred for trial purposes also finds, 
     for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the 
     interests of justice, that the action should be retained for 
     the determination of compensatory damages.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil 
     action pending on or brought on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is about to 
pass S. 1748, the Multi-District Jurisdiction Act of 1999, and H.R. 
2112, as amended by the Hatch-Leahy substitute during its consideration 
in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Our substitute amendment is the text 
of S. 1748, the Multi-District Jurisdiction Act of 1999, which the 
distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and I, along 
with Senators Grassley, Torricelli, Kohl, and Schumer, introduced last 
week. Our bipartisan legislation is needed by Federal judges across the 
country to restore their power to promote the fair and efficient 
administration of justice in multi-district litigation.
  Current law authorizes the Judicial Panel on Multi-District 
Litigation to transfer related cases, pending in multiple Federal 
judicial districts, to a single district for coordinated or 
consolidated pretrial proceedings. This makes good sense because 
transfers by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation are based 
on centralizing those cases to serve the convenience of the parties and 
witnesses and to promote efficient judicial management.
  For nearly 30 years, many transferee judges, following circuit and 
district court case law, retained these multi-district cases for trial 
because the transferee judge and the parties were already familiar with 
each other and the facts of the case through the pretrial proceedings. 
The Supreme Court in Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & 
Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), however, found that this well-established 
practice was not authorized by the general venue provisions in the 
United States Code. Following the Lexecon ruling, the Judicial Panel on 
Multi-District Litigation must now remand each transferred case to its 
original district at the conclusion of the pretrial proceedings, unless 
the case is already settled or otherwise terminated. This new process 
is costly, inefficient and time consuming.
  The Multi-District Jurisdiction Act of 1999 seeks to restore the 
power of transferee judges to resolve multi-district cases as 
expeditiously and fairly as possible. Our bipartisan bill amends 
section 1407 of title 28 of the United States Code to allow a 
transferee judge to retain cases for trial or transfer those cases to 
another judicial district for trial in the interests of justice and for 
the convenience of parties and witnesses. The legislation provides 
transferee judges the flexibility they need to administer justice 
quickly and efficiently. Indeed, our legislation is supported by the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Judicial Conference of 
the United States and the Department of Justice.
  In addition, we have included a section in our bill to ensure 
fairness during the determination of compensatory damages by adding the 
presumption that the case will be remanded to the transferor court for 
this phase of the trial. Specifically, this provision provides that to 
the extent a case is tried

[[Page 27056]]

outside of the transferor forum, it would be solely for the purpose of 
a consolidated trial on liability, and if appropriate, punitive 
damages, and that the case must be remanded to the transferor court for 
the purposes of trial on compensatory damages, unless the court to 
which the action has been transferred for trial purposes also finds, 
for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests 
of justice, that the action should be retained for the determination of 
compensatory damages. This section is identical to a bipartisan 
amendment proposed by Representative Berman and accepted by the House 
Judiciary Committee during its consideration of similar legislation 
earlier this year.
  Multi-district litigation generally involves some of the most complex 
fact-specific cases, which affect the lives of citizens across the 
nation. For example, multi-district litigation entails such national 
legal matters as asbestos, silicone gel breast implants, diet drugs 
like fen-phen, hemophiliac blood products, Norplant contraceptives and 
all major airplane crashes. In fact, as of February 1999, approximately 
140 transferee judges were supervising about 160 groups of multi-
district cases, with each group composed of hundreds, or even 
thousands, of cases in various stages of trial development.
  But the efficient case management of these multi-district cases is a 
risk after the Lexecon ruling. Judge John F. Nangle, Chairman of the 
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, recently testified before 
Congress that: ``Since Lexecon, significant problems have arisen that 
have hindered the sensible conduct of multi-district litigation. 
Transferee judges throughout the United States have voiced their 
concern to me about the urgent need to enact this legislation.''
  Mr. President, Congress should listen to the concerned voices of our 
Federal Judiciary and swiftly send the Multi-District Jurisdiction Act 
of 1999 to the President for his signature into law.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements 
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee substitute was agreed to.
  The bill (H.R. 2112), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________