CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS IN DANGER

According to the September 14, 1999 Congress Daily, H.R. 1875 will be on the floor
of the House September 23 (the article is attached below).  Please contact your Representative immediately, to ask that they  OPPOSE  H.R. 1875.

Congress Daily, September 14, 1999
In other floor scheduling developments, the House is now poised to take up class action reform legislation Sept. 23 - a week from Thursday. That measure is expected to pass, albeit mostly along party lines. 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, although sources believe the House's action could prompt him to do so.

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.  The bill will go to the full House in early September when they return from recess.

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 House and the Senate,
          or by a presidential veto.
              But Your Help is needed in order to accomplish this.

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:

• Please contact your U.S Representative  [1-202-224-3121] to oppose H.R. 1875,  the "Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act."
• Please tell your U.S. Senators  [1-202-224-3121] to oppose H.R. 1875, if it passes the House, 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 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.

Three Virginia representatives are on the House Judiciary Committee:  Rick Boucher (one of the sponsors of the legislation), Bobby Scott, and Robert Goodlatte.  Scott voted against H.R. 1875, while Boucher and Goodlatte voted for it on August 3, 1999.  For actions you can take in regard to these bills, please see the beginning of this page.

Updated  14 September 1999