[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2786-2790]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION AND VENUE CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 394) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify 
the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 394

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal 
     Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                  TITLE I--JURISDICTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 101. Treatment of resident aliens.
Sec. 102. Citizenship of corporations and insurance companies with 
              foreign contacts.
Sec. 103. Removal and remand procedures.
Sec. 104. Effective date.

               TITLE II--VENUE AND TRANSFER IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 201. Scope and definitions.

[[Page 2787]]

Sec. 202. Venue generally.
Sec. 203. Repeal of section 1392.
Sec. 204. Change of venue.
Sec. 205. Effective date.

                  TITLE I--JURISDICTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

     SEC. 101. TREATMENT OF RESIDENT ALIENS.

       Section 1332(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the last sentence; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``foreign state'' 
     the following: ``, except that the district courts shall not 
     have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action 
     between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a 
     foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same 
     State''.

     SEC. 102. CITIZENSHIP OF CORPORATIONS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES 
                   WITH FOREIGN CONTACTS.

       Section 1332(c)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``any State'' and inserting ``every State 
     and foreign state'';
       (2) by striking ``the State'' and inserting ``the State or 
     foreign state''; and
       (3) by striking all that follows ``party-defendant,'' and 
     inserting ``such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of--
       ``(A) every State and foreign state of which the insured is 
     a citizen;
       ``(B) every State and foreign state by which the insurer 
     has been incorporated; and
       ``(C) the State or foreign state where the insurer has its 
     principal place of business; and''.

     SEC. 103. REMOVAL AND REMAND PROCEDURES.

       (a) Actions Removable Generally.--Section 1441 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended as follows:
       (1) The section heading is amended by striking ``Actions 
     removable generally'' and inserting ``Removal of civil 
     actions''.
       (2) Subsection (a) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(a) Except'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Generally.--Except''; and
       (B) by striking the last sentence;
       (3) Subsection (b) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Removal Based on Diversity of Citizenship.--(1) In 
     determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis 
     of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title, the 
     citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall 
     be disregarded.
       ``(2) A civil action otherwise removable solely on the 
     basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title 
     may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly 
     joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in 
     which such action is brought.''.
       (4) Subsection (c) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Joinder of Federal Law Claims and State Law Claims.--
     (1) If a civil action includes--
       ``(A) a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or 
     treaties of the United States (within the meaning of section 
     1331 of this title), and
       ``(B) a claim not within the original or supplemental 
     jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that has been 
     made nonremovable by statute,

     the entire action may be removed if the action would be 
     removable without the inclusion of the claim described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(2) Upon removal of an action described in paragraph (1), 
     the district court shall sever from the action all claims 
     described in paragraph (1)(B) and shall remand the severed 
     claims to the State court from which the action was removed. 
     Only defendants against whom a claim described in paragraph 
     (1)(A) has been asserted are required to join in or consent 
     to the removal under paragraph (1).''.
       (5) Subsection (d) is amended by striking ``(d) Any'' and 
     inserting ``(d) Actions Against Foreign States.--Any''.
       (6) Subsection (e) is amended by striking ``(e)(1) 
     Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``(e) Multiparty, Multiforum 
     Jurisdiction.--(1) Notwithstanding''.
       (7) Subsection (f) is amended by striking ``(f) The court'' 
     and inserting ``(f) Derivative Removal Jurisdiction.--The 
     court''.
       (b) Procedure for Removal of Civil Actions.--Section 1446 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended as follows:
       (1) The section heading is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1446. Procedure for removal of civil actions''.

       (2) Subsection (a) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(a) A defendant'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Generally.--A defendant''; and
       (B) by striking ``or criminal prosecution''.
       (3) Subsection (b) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(b) The notice'' and inserting ``(b) 
     Requirements; Generally.--(1) The notice''; and
       (B) by striking the second paragraph and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2)(A) When a civil action is removed solely under 
     section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined 
     and served must join in or consent to the removal of the 
     action.
       ``(B) Each defendant shall have 30 days after receipt by or 
     service on that defendant of the initial pleading or summons 
     described in paragraph (1) to file the notice of removal.
       ``(C) If defendants are served at different times, and a 
     later-served defendant files a notice of removal, any 
     earlier-served defendant may consent to the removal even 
     though that earlier-served defendant did not previously 
     initiate or consent to removal.
       ``(3) Except as provided in subsection (c), if the case 
     stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of 
     removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the 
     defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an 
     amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it 
     may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has 
     become removable.'';
       (C) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Requirements; Removal Based on Diversity of 
     Citizenship.--(1) A case may not be removed under subsection 
     (b)(3) on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 
     more than 1 year after commencement of the action, unless the 
     district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad 
     faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the 
     action.
       ``(2) If removal of a civil action is sought on the basis 
     of the jurisdiction conferred by section 1332(a), the sum 
     demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be 
     deemed to be the amount in controversy, except that--
       ``(A) the notice of removal may assert the amount in 
     controversy if the initial pleading seeks--
       ``(i) nonmonetary relief; or
       ``(ii) a money judgment, but the State practice either does 
     not permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of 
     damages in excess of the amount demanded; and
       ``(B) removal of the action is proper on the basis of an 
     amount in controversy asserted under subparagraph (A) if the 
     district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, 
     that the amount in controversy exceeds the amount specified 
     in section 1332(a).
       ``(3)(A) If the case stated by the initial pleading is not 
     removable solely because the amount in controversy does not 
     exceed the amount specified in section 1332(a), information 
     relating to the amount in controversy in the record of the 
     State proceeding, or in responses to discovery, shall be 
     treated as an `other paper' under subsection (b)(3).
       ``(B) If the notice of removal is filed more than 1 year 
     after commencement of the action and the district court finds 
     that the plaintiff deliberately failed to disclose the actual 
     amount in controversy to prevent removal, that finding shall 
     be deemed bad faith under paragraph (1).''.
       (4) Section 1446 is further amended--
       (A) in subsection (d), by striking ``(d) Promptly'' and 
     inserting ``(d) Notice to Adverse Parties and State Court.--
     Promptly'';
       (B) by striking ``thirty days'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``30 days'';
       (C) by striking subsection (e); and
       (D) in subsection (f), by striking ``(f) With respect'' and 
     inserting ``(e) Counterclaim in 337 Proceeding.--With 
     respect''.
       (c) Procedure for Removal of Criminal Actions.--Chapter 89 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1454. Procedure for removal of criminal prosecutions

       ``(a) Notice of Removal.--A defendant or defendants 
     desiring to remove any criminal prosecution from a State 
     court shall file in the district court of the United States 
     for the district and division within which such prosecution 
     is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of 
     the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a short 
     and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with 
     a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such 
     defendant or defendants in such action.
       ``(b) Requirements.--(1) A notice of removal of a criminal 
     prosecution shall be filed not later than 30 days after the 
     arraignment in the State court, or at any time before trial, 
     whichever is earlier, except that for good cause shown the 
     United States district court may enter an order granting the 
     defendant or defendants leave to file the notice at a later 
     time.
       ``(2) A notice of removal of a criminal prosecution shall 
     include all grounds for such removal. A failure to state 
     grounds that exist at the time of the filing of the notice 
     shall constitute a waiver of such grounds, and a second 
     notice may be filed only on grounds not existing at the time 
     of the original notice. For good cause shown, the United 
     States district court may grant relief from the limitations 
     of this paragraph.
       ``(3) The filing of a notice of removal of a criminal 
     prosecution shall not prevent the State court in which such 
     prosecution is pending from proceeding further, except that a 
     judgment of conviction shall not be entered unless the 
     prosecution is first remanded.
       ``(4) The United States district court in which such notice 
     is filed shall examine the notice promptly. If it clearly 
     appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed 
     thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall 
     make an order for summary remand.
       ``(5) If the United States district court does not order 
     the summary remand of such prosecution, it shall order an 
     evidentiary hearing

[[Page 2788]]

     to be held promptly and, after such hearing, shall make such 
     disposition of the prosecution as justice shall require. If 
     the United States district court determines that removal 
     shall be permitted, it shall so notify the State court in 
     which prosecution is pending, which shall proceed no further.
       ``(c) Writ of Habeas Corpus.--If the defendant or 
     defendants are in actual custody on process issued by the 
     State court, the district court shall issue its writ of 
     habeas corpus, and the marshal shall thereupon take such 
     defendant or defendants into the marshal's custody and 
     deliver a copy of the writ to the clerk of such State 
     court.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for chapter 89 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in the item relating to section 1441, by striking 
     ``Actions removable generally'' and inserting ``Removal of 
     civil actions'';
       (B) in the item relating to section 1446, by inserting ``of 
     civil actions'' after ``removal''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new item:

``1454. Procedure for removal of criminal prosecutions.''.

       (2) Section 1453(b) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``1446(b)'' and inserting ``1446(c)(1)''.

     SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the amendments 
     made by this title shall take effect upon the expiration of 
     the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and shall apply to any action or prosecution 
     commenced on or after such effective date.
       (b) Treatment of Cases Removed to Federal Court.--For 
     purposes of subsection (a), an action or prosecution 
     commenced in State court and removed to Federal court shall 
     be deemed to commence on the date the action or prosecution 
     was commenced, within the meaning of State law, in State 
     court.

               TITLE II--VENUE AND TRANSFER IMPROVEMENTS

     SEC. 201. SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 87 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting before section 1391 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1390. Scope

       ``(a) Venue Defined.--As used in this chapter, the term 
     `venue' refers to the geographic specification of the proper 
     court or courts for the litigation of a civil action that is 
     within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district courts 
     in general, and does not refer to any grant or restriction of 
     subject-matter jurisdiction providing for a civil action to 
     be adjudicated only by the district court for a particular 
     district or districts.
       ``(b) Exclusion of Certain Cases.--Except as otherwise 
     provided by law, this chapter shall not govern the venue of a 
     civil action in which the district court exercises the 
     jurisdiction conferred by section 1333, except that such 
     civil actions may be transferred between district courts as 
     provided in this chapter.
       ``(c) Clarification Regarding Cases Removed From State 
     Courts.--This chapter shall not determine the district court 
     to which a civil action pending in a State court may be 
     removed, but shall govern the transfer of an action so 
     removed as between districts and divisions of the United 
     States district courts.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 87 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before the item relating to section 1391 
     the following new item:

``1390. Scope.''.

     SEC. 202. VENUE GENERALLY.

       Section 1391 of title 28, United States Code, is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By striking subsections (a) through (d) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) Applicability of Section.--Except as otherwise 
     provided by law--
       ``(1) this section shall govern the venue of all civil 
     actions brought in district courts of the United States; and
       ``(2) the proper venue for a civil action shall be 
     determined without regard to whether the action is local or 
     transitory in nature.
       ``(b) Venue in General.--A civil action may be brought in--
       ``(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, 
     if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 
     district is located;
       ``(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of 
     the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or 
     a substantial part of property that is the subject of the 
     action is situated; or
       ``(3) if there is no district in which an action may 
     otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any 
     judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the 
     court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
       ``(c) Residency.--For all venue purposes--
       ``(1) a natural person, including an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence in the United States, shall 
     be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that 
     person is domiciled;
       ``(2) an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its 
     common name under applicable law, whether or not 
     incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in 
     any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to 
     the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil 
     action in question and, if a plaintiff, only in the judicial 
     district in which it maintains its principal place of 
     business; and
       ``(3) a defendant not resident in the United States may be 
     sued in any judicial district, and the joinder of such a 
     defendant shall be disregarded in determining where the 
     action may be brought with respect to other defendants.
       ``(d) Residency of Corporations in States With Multiple 
     Districts.--For purposes of venue under this chapter, in a 
     State which has more than one judicial district and in which 
     a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal 
     jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such 
     corporation shall be deemed to reside in any district in that 
     State within which its contacts would be sufficient to 
     subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a 
     separate State, and, if there is no such district, the 
     corporation shall be deemed to reside in the district within 
     which it has the most significant contacts.''.
       (2) In subsection (e)--
       (A) in the first paragraph--
       (i) by striking ``(1)'', ``(2)'', and ``(3)'' and inserting 
     ``(A)'', ``(B)'', and ``(C)'', respectively; and
       (ii) by striking ``(e) A civil action'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(e) Actions Where Defendant Is Officer or Employee of the 
     United States.--
       ``(1) In general.--A civil action''; and
       (B) in the second undesignated paragraph by striking ``The 
     summons and complaint'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Service.--The summons and complaint''.
       (3) In subsection (f), by striking ``(f) A civil action'' 
     and inserting ``(f) Civil Actions Against a Foreign State.--A 
     civil action''.
       (4) In subsection (g), by striking ``(g) A civil action'' 
     and inserting ``(g) Multiparty, Multiforum Litigation.--A 
     civil action''.

     SEC. 203. REPEAL OF SECTION 1392.

       Section 1392 of title 28, United States Code, and the item 
     relating to that section in the table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 87 of such title, are repealed.

     SEC. 204. CHANGE OF VENUE.

       Section 1404 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``or to any district or division to 
     which all parties have consented''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``As used in this 
     section,'' and inserting ``Transfers from a district court of 
     the United States to the District Court of Guam, the District 
     Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court 
     of the Virgin Islands shall not be permitted under this 
     section. As otherwise used in this section,''.

     SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title--
       (1) shall take effect upon the expiration of the 30-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) shall apply to--
       (A) any action that is commenced in a United States 
     district court on or after such effective date; and
       (B) any action that is removed from a State court to a 
     United States district court and that had been commenced, 
     within the meaning of State law, on or after such effective 
     date.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 394, the bill currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Ranking Member Conyers, 
Courts Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, Courts Ranking Member Cohen, 
and former Courts Subcommittee Chairman Hank Johnson for cosponsoring 
the bill.
  The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act brings 
more clarity to the operation of jurisdictional statutes and 
facilitates the identification of the appropriate State or Federal 
court where actions should be brought.
  Judges believe the current rules force them to waste time determining 
jurisdictional issues at the expense of adjudicating underlying 
litigation. The

[[Page 2789]]

contents of this bill are based on recommendations developed and 
approved by the United States Judicial Conference to address the 
judiciary's concerns.
  This legislation contains a number of revisions to Federal 
jurisdictional and venue law. Among the changes, the bill clarifies the 
definition of citizenship for foreign corporations and domestic 
corporations doing business abroad; separates the removal provisions 
governing civil cases and those governing criminal cases into two 
statutes; and creates a general venue statute that unifies the approach 
to venue in diversity and Federal question cases, while maintaining 
current venue standards.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 394.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 394 is intended to clarify a number of 
uncertainties and technical flaws in statutory provisions governing 
Federal court jurisdiction and venue that have come to light in recent 
years.
  The legislation addresses the inefficient rules which judges have 
identified. These rules have required judges to spend considerable time 
deliberating jurisdictional issues instead of analyzing the case's 
facts and applicable laws. In the 111th Congress, we passed similar 
legislation in the House on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, the 
Senate was unable to pass it before the end of the 111th Congress.
  This legislation is based on studies within the judiciary and 
consultation from academics and legal organizations, including the 
American Bar Association, Lawyers for Civil Justice, the Federal Bar 
Association, the American Association for Justice, and the Chamber of 
Commerce. Additionally, the Judicial Conference of the United States 
has endorsed this legislation.
  I want to thank my friend and sponsor of this bill, Chairman Lamar 
Smith for his continued efforts to strengthen the operations and 
efficiencies of our Federal judiciary. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bipartisan legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
H.R. 394, ``Federal Courts and Venue Clarification Act of 2011.'' As a 
Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I am pleased to say that H.R. 
394 enjoys strong bipartisan support and completes important work that 
was commenced during the 111th Congress when we considered and passed 
this bill in its previous form under H.R. 4113. This legislation has 
been a priority for Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, Ranking Member John 
Conyers and the many members of this chamber who passed this H.R. 4113 
in the 111th Congress. Though, we were able to pass H.R. 4113 in the 
111th Congress, the Senate was unable to pass it before the end of the 
111th Congress. So today, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to 
consider and pass H.R. 394 at an early stage in the 112th Congress and 
provide our Senate colleagues with ample time to pass it as well.
  As an Attorney and former Judge, I cannot overemphasize the 
importance of providing our federal judges and members of the legal 
profession with clear guidelines regarding issues of jurisdiction and 
venue. Providing our federal courts with clear guidelines on what cases 
they can hear under their jurisdiction and the proper venue for hearing 
such cases is central to the fair and efficient administration of 
justice in our democratic nation which is squarely based upon the rule 
of law. To that end, H.R. 394, the ``Federal Courts Jurisdiction and 
Venue Clarification Act of 2010'', is intended to clarify a number of 
uncertainties and technical flaws in statutory provisions governing 
federal court jurisdiction and venue that have come to light in recent 
years. The legislation addresses inefficient rules which judges 
themselves have identified. These rules have required judges to spend 
considerable time deliberating jurisdictional issues instead of 
focusing on analyzing the important facts and laws applicable to the 
cases before them. H.R. 394 provides guidance and a solution to this 
problem.
  The legislation is based on studies undertaken within the judiciary, 
and with consultation from academicians and legal organizations, 
including the American Bar Association, Lawyers for Civil Justice, the 
Federal Bar Association, the American Association for Justice, and the 
Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, the Judicial Conference of the 
United States has endorsed this legislation.
  In the 1990s, the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State 
Jurisdiction began to identify recurring problems encountered by 
litigants and judges in applying certain jurisdictional and venue 
statutes. Following years of study, and consideration of the American 
Law Institute's Federal Judicial Code Revision Project (2004), the 
Committee carefully crafted solutions to these particular areas of 
confusion, in consultation with law professors. The Conference endorsed 
those solutions, which this legislation embodies. This Act is necessary 
to clarify important issues of jurisdiction and venue. The bill is 
intended to facilitate the administration of justice by bringing more 
clarity to the operation of jurisdictional and venue statutes, thereby 
helping to reduce wasteful litigation over certain issues.
  Under its Jurisdictional provisions, this bill:
  Eliminates the ``resident alien proviso'' and clarifies that district 
courts do not have diversity jurisdiction over a claim between a 
citizen of a state and a permanent resident alien domiciled in the same 
state;
  More clearly defines ``citizenship'' for foreign corporations and 
domestic corporations doing business abroad, as well as for direct 
actions against insurance companies;
  Ensures that when a federal question claim is removed along with 
state law claims that are not within the supplemental jurisdiction of 
the district court or are otherwise non-removable by statute, the 
federal question claim will proceed in federal court and such state law 
claims will be remanded to state court;
  Separates the removal provisions governing civil cases and those 
governing criminal cases into two separate statutes, as well as grouped 
together removal provisions relating solely to actions based on 
diversity jurisdiction for ease of reference by litigants;
  Codifies current practice that all defendants must join in or consent 
to removal in order for the action to be removed to federal court;
  Clarifies the provisions governing timeliness of removal by giving 
each defendant 30 days after service to file a notice of removal, while 
allowing any earlier-served defendants to consent to the removal by the 
later-served defendant;
  Permits removal of a case after one year if a plaintiff has acted in 
bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action; and
  Allows information learned through discovery indicating that a claim 
is worth more than the minimum amount in controversy for diversity to 
trigger a new 30-day period in which to remove.
  Under its Venue & Transfer provisions, this bill:
  Sets forth a definition of venue and codifies the scope of venue 
provisions;
  Creates a unified approach to venue in both diversity and federal 
question cases, while maintaining current venue standards;
  Eliminates the outdated ``local action'' rule, which restricts where 
certain actions involving real property can be brought;
  Clarifies that a person is deemed to reside in the judicial district 
in which that person is domiciled;
  Provides that unincorporated associations will be treated the same as 
incorporated associations for determining venue, so that they will also 
be regarded as residents of any district in which they are subject to 
personal jurisdiction;
  Eliminates a venue defense for persons residing outside the United 
States and grants a venue defense to permanent resident aliens with a 
domicile in the United States;
  Allows cases to be transferred, for the convenience of the parties 
and witnesses and in the interest of justice, to any district or 
division to which all parties have consented; and
  Clarifies that transfers of cases from United States district courts 
(Article III courts) to territorial district courts (Article IV courts) 
are not permissible.
  This bill will finally address and resolve jurisdiction and venue 
issues that have wasted the time of our federal judiciary for years and 
will help bring about more efficient administration of justice. So, I 
ask my colleagues to stand with me today and vote in favor of the H.R. 
394, ``Federal Courts and Venue Clarification Act of 2011.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 394, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.

[[Page 2790]]


  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________