H.R. 1115: James Moran joined with the Republicans and voted for his rich corporate friends, again!

8th District congressional candidate Andy Rosenberg raises the issue of H.R. 1115, called the "Class Action Fairness Act" by its supporters who included James Moran. Congress passed this bill on June 12, 2003. 221 Republicans and only 32 Democrats, including James Moran, voted for it. 166 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 1 independent voted against it.

The bill allowed many corporate defendants in state class action suits to move the suits to federal court. At the time Moran voted for it, the bill applied to pending class action suits against the following defendants:

• For financial fraud
  • Enron
  • WorldCom
  • Arthur Anderson
• For environmental damage
  • Dow Chemical
• For employment discrimination
  • Walmart
• for autism and other neurological damage
  • Eli Lilly
  • Aventis Pasteur
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Abbott Laboratories
  • Merck
  • Wyeth

Ivins answered: "Of course. The direct connection between Moran's voting record and the loans is all the evidence you need."

The Consumers Union, a non-profit group which publishes Consumer Reports, had this to say about H.R. 1115:

"HR 1115 permits defendants to remove most state class action suits to federal court. While a class could meet state law class certification requirements, it could fail to meet the federal class certification requirements. This could result in the federal courts’ denial of class certification and dismissal (not remand) of the case. A consumer would now have two options, none of which would lead to a just result. A consumer could bring the claim in state court as an individual action. Class actions are a much more efficient way of resolving disputes than individual cases-individual cases are often for such small amounts they are impractical to litigate and lack the same deterrent effect when they are brought. In the alternative, a litigant could re-file an amended class certification in state court. This re-filing again opens the door under HR 1115 for the defendant to remove the case to federal court, resulting in legal ping-pong for the wronged class members."

Moran voted for H.R. 1115 even though it is contrary to the proposals of the Judicial Conference. Chief Justice Rehnquist heads this group, which includes the Chief Judge of every United States Court of Appeals. The Consumer Union describes the Judicial Conference's proposal as follows:

"The Conference has studied the complex problems of class action reform over the past decade and considered the views of state and federal judges, plaintiff and defense lawyers, consumer and civil rights groups and leading academics. The Judicial Conference has taken the following steps to address concerns about class actions, doing so without undermining legitimate claims:

• Implement new practices to protect class members from abusive practices that go into effect in December, 2003, including requiring a specific hearing before the judge on whether a class action settlement is 'fair, reasonable, and accurate.'
• Allow for discretionary appeals of class certification from federal district to federal appeals courts, but without giving litigants the power to stay the case, and thereby delay, the proceedings during the appeal process as is found in HR 1115.
• Made legislative recommendations providing that only those cases that are truly interstate actions be moved to federal. The Judicial Conference recommendations preserve the rights of state courts to hear cases involving their own residents where a defendant is headquartered in the state or has its principal place of business in the state (unlike HR 1115, where these cases would be moved to federal court regardless of their truly single state character).
• Continue the study of class action reforms to determine if more reforms are warranted."

"By contrast, HR 1115's sweeping provisions will only clog an already overburdened federal judiciary and slow the pace of certifying class actions. Removal to federal court of virtually all cases also undermines an important and traditional function of state courts and will slow - and in some cases thwart - the continual interpretation of state law. The ABA Task force on Class Action Legislation’s recent report noted: 'Any expansion [of federal court jurisdiction] should preserve a balance between legitimate state-court interests and federal-court jurisdictional benefits.'

HR 1115 lacks that balance. Federal court decisions on issues of state law solve the narrow legal issue of the particular case without providing legal precedent for future state court cases of the particular state law in question. Further, class actions are among the most resource-intensive cases before the federal judiciary."

<  |  >