UPDATE on CLASS ACTION LEGISLATION

INFORMATION on a "Gift to the Tobacco Industry"

Two bills in Senate
Summary of H.R.1875 action
Senate Bill S.353
Vote
Excerpts from Article, Richmond Times-Dispatch
Further Information
Actions You Can Take

It is still unclear as to whether the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider S. 353, the Class Action "Fairness" Act.

EXCERPTS from Friday, October 2, 1999,
Congress Daily, by Pamela Barnett:

JUDICIARY
Class Action Reform: Half Full Or Half Empty
   Depending upon one's perspective, the House vote to pass
legislation to restrict class action lawsuits last week was
viewed as either a resounding victory or crushing defeat. At 222-
207, the margin on the heavily lobbied bill was slender, but even
more so when one crunches the numbers: In all, just 18 Democrats
voted for the bill - about half the number some lobbyists had
hoped to get. Also disconcerting was the loss of 15 Republicans,
including, surprisingly, Rep. Helen Chenoweth, R-Idaho. Richard
Middleton, president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of
America, the bill's chief foe, leapt on the 222-207 win as "the
narrowest of margins. [A] bare majority of the [House] has acted
against the interests of small businesses and consumers to
federalize virtually all class action litigation." The ATLA's
presumption is that the bill "is basically dead," added one
source familiar with the group's thinking.

   But other observers depicted the vote as a wholesale victory.
"[It is] only 18 Democrats - but that's good, for a liability
reform bill," reasoned one supporter. This source, a legal reform
expert, noted the House vote "should provide a lot of momentum
for something to happen in the Senate."

   Robert McConnell, counsel to the Civil Justice Reform Group ... said the signals he has gotten thus far indicate the Utah Republican's [Senator Orin Hatch, Senate Judiciary Chairman] commitment to the legislation is firm. The bill already has Senate Judiciary Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition Subcommittee ranking member Herb Kohl, D-Wis., as a chief cosponsor, and McConnell said he is confident that "we will have
one, if not two more [Democratic] votes, when the committee
votes." Hatch told CongressDaily this week he had not yet begun
to focus on the class action measure. But it is an "important
bill ... that deserves every consideration," he said.
   The bill's supporters' near-term goal is to get the bill
through the Senate panel this fall. While it is generally
accepted that there is no time this year for a full Senate debate
and vote on the bill, McConnell hinted that the measure may
somehow be repackaged.

H.R. 1875 narrowly passed.
Senate Action uncertain in light of President Clinton's opposition to the bill

In a vote on Thursday, September 23, the House of Representatives regrettably passed H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act, by a vote of 222 to 207.

VOTE is at  http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1999&rollnumber=443

While the measure did pass, this vote not only protected the President's expected veto, but also sent a signal that the level of opposition to this bill is particularly strong.

In addition to the vote on final passage, there were a number of amendments
offered:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) offered an amendment to exempt any class action from the provisions of the bill that is brought  for harm caused by a
firearm or ammunition.  The Nadler amendment was defeated 152-277.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee's (D-Texas) amendment to exempt from the bill any
class action that is brought for harm caused by  a tobacco product failed 162-266.

A substitute amendment by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) to an amendment originally offered by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) was  agreed to by voice vote.
The amendment would bar a plaintiff who is not a named class member in the
action from seeking  removal of the action to federal court before a class
containing the plaintiff has been certified.

Rep. Barney Frank's (D-Mass.) amendment to allow a State court to certify
a class action after the action has failed to meet  class certification in a
Federal court was defeated 202-225

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to delay implementation of the act until the number of vacancies of  Federal judgeships is less that 3 percent.  The amendment failed 185-241.

The bill now moves to the Senate, which has its own bill, S. 353.
    Thanks to Public Citizen for their information utilized in the above summary.

Excerpts from The Richmond Times-Dispatch,
Friday, September 24, 1999; article by Peter Hardin

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives yesterday approved a bill by two Virginians to curb what they consider lawsuit abuses, overriding pleas of tobacco foes to stand up for smoking victims against the industry.

                  A day after the federal government filed a suit accusing the tobacco
                  companies of decades of fraudulent conduct, anti-tobacco crusaders urged
                  against giving the industry "backdoor immunity" from class-action lawsuits.

                  The bill would change the rules to make it easier to move large, interstate
                  class-action lawsuits from state courts to federal courts. Its chief author,
                  Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, a Roanoke Republican, contended the critics
                  were mistaken and the legislation wouldn't give special protection to the
                  tobacco companies.

                  The legislation was supported by many major industries, from automobile
                  and chemical producers to small aircraft makers and insurance companies.
                  The cases affected would include everything from employment
                  discrimination, environmental disasters and health care fraud to product
                  liability cases such as asbestos suits.

                  Goodlatte and co-author Rick Boucher, an Abingdon Democrat, said they
                  wanted to prevent abusessuch as lawyers "shopping" for a favorable state
                  judge and plaintiffs' lawyers getting large fees while plaintiffs collect little or
                  no money in a winning lawsuit.

                  "This is a gift to the tobacco industry, granted at the expense of those who
                  wish to hold that industry accountable," stormed Rep. Henry A. Waxman,
                  D-Calif. The bill "would make it virtually impossible for Americans to
                  successfully bring class-action lawsuits against tobacco companies."

                  Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Newport News, took to the floor to portray the
                  Goodlatte-Boucher legislation as "a radical response to a handful of court
                  decisions that some disagree with."

                  But Rep. James Moran, D-Va. and one of the sponsors of the legislation,
                  said the bill would correct a statutory anomaly. "Now a judge in one state
                  decides the laws in all the states," he said. "But I don't want the laws of
                  Virginia to be decided by some judge in Texas."

                  By a 222-207 vote, the House sent the bill to the Senate, where it may
                  receive a cooler reception.

                  The Justice Department has opposed the measure, and the Clinton
                  administration said it would recommend a veto if the bill is ultimately
                  approved. White House officials said yesterday that the legislation would
                  lead to the widespread dismissal of many kinds of claims that plaintiffs are
                  now winning, and which have had the effect of protecting consumers and
                  deterring corporate misconduct.

 The bill was criticized by the Conference of Chief Justices of state courts,  and the Judicial Conference of the United States, made up of  federal judges, as well as 15 state attorneys general, a number of lawyer organizations and a broad array of civil rights, disabilities, consumer, anti-tobacco, gun control  and health-care groups.

                  Backers of the bill include manufacturer Philip Morris and major business
                  interests such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National
                  Association of Manufacturers.

Further Information:

Please contact your Senators to ask that they  OPPOSE  H.R. 1875 and OPPOSE S. 353.

Congress Daily, September 14, 1999, Excerpt
The class action bill would make it easier for defendants named in a class action to remove a case to federal court - a venue more apt to produce favorable results for those named in the suit. Senate Judiciary Chairman Hatch has not yet scheduled any full committee hearings in his panel on comparable legislation . . .

Further information is given in this section

• Actions you can take  including contacting your Senators and Representative,
• the two bills  H.R. 1875 and S. 353
• votes on August 3, 1999 in the  House Judiciary Committee,
• some of those who oppose these bills.

The vote in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee was 15-12, with all Democrats,except Rick Boucher, voting against the bill.

You may contact them by mail, e-mail, FAX, or phone calls to their offices.

We must work to stop both H.R. 1875 and S. 353
       in the Senate,
          or by a presidential veto.
              But Your Help is needed in order to accomplish this.

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:

• Please tell your U.S. Senators  [1-202-224-3121] to oppose H.R. 1875,  and to oppose S. 353,  the so-called "Class Action Fairness Act."
• Please contact Vice President Al Gore  [1-202-456-1111] to urge him to work and vote against H.R. 1875 and S. 353, if there is a tie.
• Please contact President Bill Clinton  [1-202-456-1111] to continue his stand to veto  H.R. 1875 and S. 353  if they make it to his desk.
• You may contact your state attorney general's office to urge them to write to your state's delegation opposing these two bills.  Some state attorneys general have already come out in opposition to these two bills.  Virginians may contact Attorney General Mark Earley, urging him to oppose these bills, and may read a little about his past support of tobacco.  With enough urging, politicians can change their minds.
• Please tell others to protect their rights by following the actions listed above.
• Notifying talk shows, letters to the editor, your friends and neighbors and family and work colleagues, and putting notices on your work, church, club, etc. bulletin boards and e-mail lists would be helpful if that is permitted.

Speak out.  Industry has no right to make it even more difficult for you to hold them accountable for the way they conduct business, and the impact that can have on your health, your life, and your future.  Industry, including the tobacco industry, must be held accountable for its actions.

The vote on H.R. 1875 in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on August 3, 1999, was on party lines for the most part.  All the Democrats present on the committee, with the exception of  Rick Boucher, voted against H.R. 1875.  The Democrats supporting your rights need your thanks.  The Republicans voted for H.R. 1875; you can ask them to change and oppose the bill in the full House.

Representative Jackson Lee (Democrat) offered an amendment to "carve out" tobacco litigation, but this was defeated on a voice vote.

Article: Congress Daily, on the vote taken August 3, 1999,
U.S. House Judiciary Committee.
JUDICIARY
Panel Approves Class Action Reform, Along Party Lines
 - by Pamela Barnett
        The House Judiciary Committee today approved interstate class action jurisdiction legislation in a mostly party line vote of 15-12.  The practical effect of the legislation, sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rick Boucher, D-Va., would be to make most class action lawsuits removable to federal court by changing the "diversity" threshold that determines whether a class action can be moved from state to federal court.  Advocates for class action plaintiffs believe they get a better shake in state courts.  The panel approved an amendment by Rep.  Maxine Waters, D-Calif., which directs the GAO to complete a study in one year on the potential impact of the measure on the judicial system, but which places no restrictions or limitations on the enactment of the measure.  The committee had previously defeated along party lines a proposal by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, that would have replaced the underlying bill with a recommendation for a one-year study on class action reform.

       The panel, also along mostly party lines, turned away two controversial proposals offered by House Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee ranking member Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. Those proposals would have given "carve outs" for class actions brought against gun makers and health maintenance organizations - and, as such, would have allowed plaintiffs in a class action to sue these entities in state court, regardless of any new diversity threshold. Goodlatte took exception to Nadler's proposals, however, attacking them as being "unconstitutional."  Current law requires there to be "complete diversity" before a state law case is eligible for removal to federal court, meaning that all of the plaintiffs must be citizens residing in different states than all of the defendants.  The bill approved by the panel would change that by making it so defendants would need only to show "minimal diversity" in requesting a forum change.

Further Information on H.R. 1875 and S. 353, and reasons to oppose these two bills:
The recent landmark decision to award punitive damages in Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al, might never have happened if  S. 353 and  H.R. 1875 were law.

Class actions are often the only remedy left to ordinary citizens to try to hold industry accountable for its actions.

For in-depth information on the damage this bill would cause our justice system, please read the committee testimony of Richard Daynard, attorney and head of the Tobacco Product Liability Project.

You can also read the committee testimony of Public Citizen.

Class action lawsuits pose a formidable threat to the tobacco industry.
Big Tobacco has joined forces with other wealthy business interests to push this legislation.

Both H.R. 1875 and S. 353 would allow tobacco companies, such as RJR and Philip Morris, to remove virtually all class action lawsuits from state to federal court.  Once there, cases would face interminable delays, and the class may be decertified resulting in delayed or denied justice.

All industries must be held accountable for their actions.  The only route open to many citizens is through class action lawsuits.  Please tell your U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative to oppose S. 353 and H.R. 1875..
.
Opposition continues to grow to these two anti-class action bills.
The following have sent letters in opposition to the bills:

• The Conference of Chief Justices (state court chief justices)
• The Judicial Conference (federal judiciary)
• 15 state attorneys general have sent letters in opposition to these bills:
• Connecticut
• Florida
• Idaho
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• New Hampshire
• New York
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Tennessee
• Vermont
• West Virginia

The 11 Virginia Representatives and Virginia Senators John Warner and Charles Robb
are listed in this web site.

1-202-224-3121 is the general number to reach all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives during the week.

For actions you can take in regard to these bills, please see the beginning of this page.

Updated  3 October 1999