The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“H.R. 860, THE MULTIDISTRICT, MULTIPARTY, MULTIFORUM TRIAL JURISDICTION ACT OF 2001” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E280 on March 6, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
____________________
