Bush Plan to Limit Lawsuits Moving Fast

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON - A Republican drive to curb large class-action lawsuits, a top priority of President Bush (news - web sites) and the business community, appears unstoppable unless backers themselves fiddle too much with a carefully wrought compromise.

With enough Senate Democrats agreeing to a GOP-approved compromise to overcome filibuster threats and with enough House Republicans ready to back a White House-approved bill, the legislation seems to be on a fast track.
...
Opponents of the bill, which would shunt the majority of class-action suits to federal instead of state courts, said it was aimed at helping businesses escape multimillion-dollar judgments for their wrongdoing and hurting the lawyers who litigate those cases.
...
"It will make it easier for corporations who have done wrong to evade accountability," said the Alliance for Justice, which opposes the bill. "Class actions allow average citizens to stop pollution, enforce state wage-and-hour employment rules and protect other consumers from defective products."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050203/ap_on_go_co/limiting_lawsuits

[annabanana]

1. Protection of Corporate Profits has ALWAYS been first on the agenda

for these criminals. They want there to be NO accountablilty for the cost-cutting, safety compromising, harm that they cause.

[SpiralHawk]

2. THIS is what it's all about:

"It will make it easier for corporations who have done wrong to evade accountability,"

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Remember when people cheered ray-guns for winning over air traffic?

Shrub still feeding pigs.

[jdots]

4. Now this little mistake will bring them down.

They can't hide behind spin on this no matter who they buy.

[gulfcoastliberal]

5. Is this yet another travesty we will not fight against?

Has Reid cut a deal to screw the average American that much worse? Do the dems really want to stamp the "bi-partisianship" label on such an egregious law? What is worth fighting for?

[byronm]

6. So our government creates laws

To impose civil control but yet creates laws that grant corporate exclusion of such?

My insurance isn't expensive because of lawsuits, but because its used to create or break profitability in my insuring agency. Insurance is supposed to be a balance of incoming cash vs distributions and profit but is instead incoming cash vs profits as the stock market determines to be succesfull.

[annabanana]

7. you hit the nail on the head byronm............the insurance companies

are the factor that the corporate media is ignoring.

[icymist]

8. Which Dems are working with the GOP?

"Senate Democrats agreeing to a GOP-approved compromise to overcome filibuster threats"

Who are aiding and abetting these criminals push though their agenda?
Inquiring Liberals want to know!

[Rose Siding]

9. Carper, Schumer and Kohl are named in the article

[JLaw82]

10. How's this for Corporate Greed..

Case in Florida where an escalator ripped several fingers off a little girl's hand.

Facts at trial:

Dilliards knew they had an escalator nicknamed "meat grinder" and "crusher."

They knew they had set up a fake company, Dillard's Elevator and Escalator Co., to conduct their own state-required "inspections," and they used unlicensed workers to save money on repairs.

They knew they had failed to report dozens of accidents to the state. So many people got caught that Dillard's regularly gave them free shoes.

Yeah, we really need to pass some more "tort reform" so that even decisions this dumb are immune from lawsuits." They truly have no shame.

[woodsprite]

15. Of course Carper would be in on it.

Delaware is the incorporation state.

[Buford Pusser]

11. The Reason is Hidden in Plain Sight

Bush wants to move all class action suits into federal court because that is where 100% of his appointees sit.

Bush's lifetime-appointed federal judges can then throw out more class action suits by granting summary judgment for the corporations and against the consumer/citizen/victim.

This is terrible legislation.

For just one of thousands of examples, the reason you feel safe lighting your gas grill without reading every last word in the instructions is because you know the company designed it well to avoid being sued.

That's how it should be.

[icymist]

12. Moving class action suits into Federal court also means...

rulings would now have a national effect, thus a way around state laws in issues such as environment, employment, housing,...

Am I right in this perception or is it too early in the morning and I need my cup of coffee?

[0007]

13. Government = Big Corporations

Government = By the People for the People and of the People Big Corporations and Pig Pals

[ProfessorGAC]

14. I Don't See This Passing Constitutional Muster

They can do all the legislating they want, but there is no precedent for eliminating basic rights from the people by the legislature. Oh, they've tried, but the courts have always said no.

No matter how many conservatives Li'l Georgie stacks in the court, i don't see this seeing the light of day, even in the medium term.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but this seems like a slamdunk to me.
The Professor

[underpants]

16. Sounds like they are judicating from the legislature

I was wondering how can federal courts rule on state employment matters? or state law at all?

[icymist]

21. An employment case may look something like this:

A protected class in Seattle and King county may be fired by the Kentucky based company for their perceived sexual orientation. How the laws stand now, the class action lawsuit that might be brought to court by the fired employee would be heard in King county court. The new law would throw this case into the Federal courts which, with an adverse ruling, may over-turn the local laws protecting this class of people. This is just a hypothetical case... I've read S-5 and the wording does not directly mention "enforce state wage-and-hour employment rules" as the article states, but changes the way the lawsuit is brought about.

[Sgent]

17. This will probably work constitutionally

under the commerce clause and disparity of jurisdictions.

The law only is applicable if the plantiff and primary defendent are in separate states AND if more than 2/3s of the plantiffs are not in the state that the lawsuit is filed in.

Given those limitations, I find it hard to see the supreme court overturning the required removal to federal court of a class action with a california plantiff, a delaware defendent, filed in a mississippi court.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. That's Possible

But, the state courts would still be able to edjudicate within state lines and regional agreements (things that have already passed constitutional muster) could be developed to override the federal law.

It wouldn't solve your transcontinental example, but it would solve a lot of them. In your example, then the federal supremecy clause would certainly apply.

But, also remember that the Georgie plan doesn't just apply to class action. It applies to the capping of all punitive and non-economic damages to the plaintiff.

I don't see the courts allowing this given the non-class aspect of this type of suit.
The Professor

[primavera]

18. Yeah, but he's got five buds on SCOTUS...

... who are quite prepared to sell the Constitution down the river in order advance their ideology. Besides, it takes years for a case to make it all the way up the food chain to SCOTUS, during which time, the pharmaceutical industry can murder a lot of innocent people with impunity. I recommend avoiding new drugs for the next several years.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Sorry, But I Don't Think So

Aside from their abrogation in December 2000, these guys have not played fast and loose with the constitution, no matter how much Fat Tony and Clarence wanted them to.

These are still fairly deliberate and focused jurists who would, IMO, be unlikely to subrogate the power of future SCOTUS members. I don't think he's got these folks in his pocket the way you suggest.
The Professor

[Sgent]

22. I agree with your thoughts on the caps

I agree that caps on civil law claims probably will not hold up to constitutional muster.

That being said, the caps on the healthcare industry *might*. It depends on which mood the court is in when they hear the case (they've been all over), but since between 40-50% of all healthcare dollars orginate in some manner with the federal government, they do have at least a leg to stand on for malpractice claims -- even if its not a very good one.

Another option (which I seriously doubt will happen) would be to immunize any physician who accepts Medicare, Medicaid, or Federal Health Employee Insurance under the FTCA. This has already happened in some states (Mississippi at least) where any physician or nursing home whose revenue is more than 30% Medicare or Medicaid is immunized under the MTCA.

The FTCA only allows for economic damage reimbursement, and it requires a federal arbitrator rather than court.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. That's A Pretty Good Alternative

Thanks for the reply.
The Professor

[Occulus]

26. I look for one or possibly two SCOTUS retirements

or perhaps even a natural death by the end of the summer.

Possibly sooner.

[patcox2]

28. They are tweaking something called "diversity jurisdiction."

There is no federal tort law. Suits heard in federal court are determined by state law in most cases. This measure makes no change to the substantive law which would govern the cases. In other words, takes away no rights, creates no other rights. And in most cases, it would not even alter the procedural rules. The federal courts actually kinda "invented" class action procedures, and most state class action rules are based on the federal rules (FRCP).

The constitution, in article 3, which creates the federal court system, grants the federal courts, grants the federal courts jurisdiction over suits "between the citizens of the several states" or words to that effect. The idea being that the courts of a state would tend to favor the person from that state. Therefore, if a person from one state sues a person from another state, the defendant can ask that the case be removed to federal court, to ensure a "nuetral" forum.

The constitution sets forth only a very general notion of diversity jurisdiction. By statute, congress sets the specific parameters for federal jurisdiction, by requiring a minimum amount in controversy, for example. And one of the requirements has been, for a long time, that there be "complete diversity." This means that you cannot remove to federal court if even one defendant is from the same state as one plaintiff. As a result of this "complete diversity" rule, most class actions cannot be removed to federal court.

I always thought the complete diversity rule was kinda dumb.

Anyhoo, to be honest, I think that all the wailing over this particular proposal is overdone. In many places, there will be little or no change. In my state, New Jersey, there will be little or no change, its for sure. The places where this will make a big difference will be in the handful of states that have become tort factories, alabama and louisiana come to mind. In those states, there is a big difference between state judges and federal judges, and the federal judges are more the fire breathing conservative types. So, as a result, plaintiffs lawyers will probably choose not to file in those states anymore. But they wouldn't do that much worse in states like New York, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts, where the rules are the same in federal and state court, and the judges are more on par, and there really won't be any huge, or even significant, advantage gained. federal courts are a little more ready to grant summary judgment, but not that much more, and if your case is in danger of summary judgment there is probably a reason.

Frankly, I am surprised that its all they asked for and surprised that they (conservatives) consider it such a huge victory . I am an attorney and I work on consumer protection class actions a bit and I don't see it changing my life.

[ProfessorGAC]

30. Thanks patcox!

That's useful to know. So, you think the constitutionality is not much of an issue because impact will be so low, or is it both?
The Professor

[patcox2]

31. Because the constitution says congress can do it.

No, its ok because the constitution says congress can set the specific limitations and parameters on the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The theory is that noone's rights will be changed, but rather, that the dispute will be heard in a forum which will be more nuetral than if the case were heard in the plaintiff's or defendant's home state.

Of course, as a practical matter, there will be some effect. But the plaintiffs lawyers can overcome that to a great degree by filing in different states so the cases will be moved to different federal courts. Anyway, the courts do not consider the practical effect, its all theory in court.

beaing a lawyer has taught me the difference between empiricism and logic. Everything in the law is perfectly logical, yet often completely divorced from reality.

My favorite quote regarding the law: "the law, in its majestic equality, forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges." I think it was Clemenceau. A lot of what Bush says reminds me of this, as he seems to think he really is making the Iraqi people more free by eliminating business regulation and privatizing their economy, you see, now every Iraqi is free to own a multibillion-dollar international corporation and enjoy all the new freedoms Bush is bringing.

[Straight Shooter]

23. Willful negligence of consumers by corporations

If anybody believes that there is a big corporation which will put the well-being of its consumers above its profits, think again! The only company that comes to mind is Stanley Tools, but they are a lone voice in the midst of wolves.

For a prime example, years ago there was the Sulzer hip replacement lawsuit. People had died, people suffered unbelievable injuries, crippling injuries, because of a little-bitty change in Sulzer's manufacturing process which saved money but caused the hip replacements to be rejected. Some people had the same defective type of product inserted twice because callous employees ignored the warning reports from doctors in the field. Middle management was deeply concerned about the situation, but at the highest level, their attitude was GFY.

Many of the plaintiffs never got justice, because Sulzer was such a complicated labyrinth of corporations that they eventually evaded any compensation to their consumer victims, even to the point of threatening bankruptcy. This is the behavior which bush and our morally and ethically corrupt Congress will be rewarding. It makes me sick!!

[Rose Siding]

25. Just passed out of committee- Full Senate next week

They sure can hussle when they want to- health care and tort reform will be completed while all eyes are on SS. Hell, maybe that was the whole idea

Senate Panel Backs Class Action Suit Bill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bill aimed at curbing class action lawsuits advanced in the Senate on Thursday as the Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) voted 13-5 to send the measure to the chamber's floor.

The bill, long sought by business interests and a key legislative priority of President Bush (news - web sites), would move most large multi-state class action lawsuits into federal court. Supporters say this would discourage abuses such as plaintiffs' forum-shopping for friendly state courts.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he wants to bring the bill up on the chamber's floor as early as next week. The Republican leader and other backers of the bill say they want to discourage "junk" lawsuits that can bankrupt companies.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20050203/ts_nm/congress_lawsuits_dc

[Megahurtz]

27. Good God!

God help us all.

[xxqqqzme]

29. Destruction of Juries in civil actions

Juries will only be required for criminal proceedings.

[patcox2]

33. It doesn't do that.

www.thomas.loc.gov

You can get text of all congressional bills and resolutions there.

[genieroze]

32. large class-action lawsuits, huh? Isn't that when MANY people are

hurt or injured? Limiting their pain and suffering increases corporate profits.

[patcox2]

34. It doesn't limit pain and suffering either.

Read the bill.

It does do one good thing, it discourages sham settlements where attorneys get millions and consumers get a coupons. These cases are sometimes ridiculous. One example was the Milli Vanilli case, anyone remember, it turned out they didn't really sing their songs.

So, a law firm filed a consumer fraud class action on behalf of all those who had bought Milli Vanilli albums. My numbers are from memory, and might be off, but it was basically like this. The settlement was $9 million for the attorneys, a coupon for $3 off your next album purchase for the consumers. That you had to fill out a claim form to get. The average response to claim form settlements like this is 5 to 10%. Sorry, but suits like that are ridiculous and should be discouraged (the law that passed simply says the attorneys fees should be based on the actual value of coupons redeeemed by customers, and not the theoretical value if everyone redeemed.) IN Milli Vanilli, for example, if all of 5 million people returned the coupons, theoretically, the settlment was worth $15 million to the consumers, therefore a $9 million attorney fee is worth it. However, if only 5% actually redeem their coupons, the payout to consumers is actually only $750,000, and an attorney fee of $9 million is excessive in light of the benefit to the class.

[Emboldened Chimp]

35. Why would the Dems NOT filibuster this?

This directly threatens the party's very survival, because it also serves to break the backs of lawyers who contribute to democrats. The survival of our party is at stake. No compromises!

[ashmanonar]

36. if they're worried about lawsuits wasting time and money...

how about stopping the riaa from suing 80 year old ladies for downloading rap, and 8 year old kids...

oh, i forgot...riaa is big business...

well, we can kiss good music goodbye. if riaa is gonna take control of the music industry, there won't be any kind of music that makes you think (rage against the machine, incubus, etc)...instead it'll be toby keith and jessica simpson singing about utter bullshit.

[VegasWolf]

37. Any democrat who votes for this travesty should not be reelected.n/t

[struggle4progress]

38. kick