THE MULTIDISTRICT TRIAL JURISDICTION ACT OF 1999 -- HON. F. JAMES
SENSENBRENNER, JR. (Extensions of Remarks - May 18, 1999)
[Page: E1005]
---
HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.
OF WISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1999
- Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Multidistrict
Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999 at the behest of the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts (or ``AO'').
- The AO is concerned over a Supreme Court opinion, the so-called Lexecon
case, pertaining to Section 1407 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code. This statute
governs Federal multidistrict litigation.
- Under Section 1407, a Multidistrict Litigation Panel--a select group of
seven Federal judges picked by the Chief Justice--helps to consolidate
lawsuits which share common questions of fact filed in more than one judicial
district nationwide. Typically, these suits involve mass torts--a plane crash,
for example--in which the plaintiffs are from many different states. All
things considered, the panel attempts to identify the one district court
nationwide which is best adept at adjudicating pretrial matters. The panel
then remands individual cases back to the districts where they were originally
filed for trial unless they have been previously terminated.
- For approximately 30 years, however, the district court selected by the
panel to hear pretrial matters (the ``transferee court'') often invoked
Section 1404(a) of Title 28 to retain jurisdiction for trial over all of the
suits. This is a general venue statute that allows a district court to
transfer a civil action to any other district or division where it may have
been brought; in effect, the court selected by the panel simply transferred
all of the cases to itself. According to the AO, this process has worked well,
since the transferee court was versed in the facts and law of the consolidated
litigation. This is also the one court which could compel all parties to
settle when appropriate.
- The Lexecon decision alters the Section 1407 landscape. This was a 1998
defamation case brought by a consulting entity (Lexecon) against a law firm
that had represented a plaintiff class in the Lincoln Savings and Loan
litigation in Arizona. Lexecon had been joined as a defendant to the class
action, which the Multidistrict Litigation Panel transferred to the District
of Arizona. Before the pretrial proceedings were concluded, Lexecon reached a
``resolution'' with the plaintiffs, and the claims against the consulting
entity were dismissed.
- Lexecon then brought a defamation suit against the law firm in the
Northern District for Illinois. The law firm moved under Section 1407 that the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel empower the Arizona court which adjudicated the
original S&L litigation to preside over the defamation suit. The panel
agreed, and the Arizona transferee court subsequently invoked its jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 1404 to preside over a trial that the law firm eventually
won. Lexecon appealed, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court
decision.
- The Supreme Court reversed, however, holding that Section 1407 explicitly
requires a transferee court to remand all cases for trial back to the
respective jurisdictions from which they were originally referred. In his
opinion, Justice Souter observed that ``the floor of Congress'' was the proper
venue to determine whether the practice of self-assignment under these
conditions should continue.
- Mr. Speaker, this legislation responds to Justice Souter's admonition. My
bill would simply amend Section 1407 by explicitly allowing a transferee court
to retain jurisdiction over referred cases for trial, or refer them to other
districts, as it sees fit. This change makes sense in light of past judicial
practice under the Multidistrict Litigation statute. It obviously promotes
judicial administrative efficiency. I therefore urge my colleagues to support
the Multidistrict Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999.
END