[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3889]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                   CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. EARL POMEROY

                            of north dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 13, 2002

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2341) to 
     amend the procedures that apply to consideration of 
     interstate class actions to assure fairer outcomes for class 
     members and defendants, to outlaw certain practices that 
     provide inadequate settlements for class members, to assure 
     that attorneys do not receive a disproportionate amount of 
     settlements at the expense of class members, to provide for 
     clearer and simpler information in class action settlement 
     notices, to assure prompt consideration of interstate class 
     actions, to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow the 
     application of the principles of Federal diversity 
     jurisdiction to interstate class actions, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise In reluctant opposition to H.R. 
2341, the Class Action Fairness Act.
  Our system of class action litigation is in dire need of reform. Most 
class action cases are national in scope and should be heard in federal 
court, where like claims may be combined and uniform decisions 
rendered. Under the current system, however, these interstate suits are 
often filed in state or county court, where the decision of a local 
judge and jury may affect the laws of all 50 states. As a former state 
insurance commissioner, I am deeply troubled that a jury panel in a 
class action case in Mississippi or New Mexico could effectively 
overturn state regulations in my home state of North Dakota.
  In addition, by allowing interstate class action claims to be filed 
in any of the thousands of local courts across the country, the 
likelihood is increased that a plaintiffs lawyer will find at least one 
judge who is willing to entertain a claim that most people would 
consider to be without merit. Once a sympathetic judge is found, the 
plaintiffs' attorney can leverage nationwide settlements that all too 
often provide little benefit to the actual plaintiffs but enormous 
benefit to the attorney.
  As important as it is to reform class action litigation, I am 
concerned that this legislation could have the effect of closing the 
courthouse door to even meritorious class action suits. The bill places 
a significant new responsibility on federal courts without providing 
the resources necessary to carry out that responsibility. The only 
study on record indicates that this legislation would burden federal 
courts to the point that class action cases could not be heard a timely 
fashion. As serious as the abuses are in the current system, we cannot 
risk denying access to our civil justice system for people who are the 
victims of wrongdoing.
  With additional time, we could have further evaluated the workload of 
the federal courts and crafted legislation that would ensure that class 
reform did not result in class action repeal. In scheduling this 
legislation, I regret that the majority leadership did not allow us 
that time. We have not heard the last of this issue. I took forward to 
continuing to work on this issue so that we have reform the class 
action system without denying the opportunity for worthy class action 
cases to be heard.

                          ____________________