Dear Senator:

I write to respectfully request your support for S. 353, the Interstate Class Action Fairness Act of 1999, which was introduced by Senators Grassley and Kohl. The Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee will be holding a hearing on this important bill on May 4, 1999.

My company strongly supports S. 353, which would amend the diversity and removal statutes to allow interstate class action suits to be heard in federal court. Under current law, many interstate class action lawsuits are unable to be heard in federal court because they do not meet the strict requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1332, which requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants, and that each plaintiff's claim must be worth at least $75,000 for a class action.

These statutory requirements do not make sense in the context of class actions that often involve parties from many states with small individual, but large aggregate claims. Many class action cases involving parties from different states become trapped in state court despite the strong interstate character of the suits. This results in a reverse federalism in which state courts decide out-of-state residents claims against out-of-state companies under other states' laws. This is contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution who created diversity jurisdiction to protect parties from "hometowning" in state courts. The class action device was created nearly 200 years after diversity jurisdiction and the Framers never envisioned this type of mass action being heard in state court.

This statutory incoherence is magnified by the significant abuses of the class action device, particularly in state courts. There has been an explosion in state court class action suits in the last five years. Many state courts apply lax class certification standards so that their courts become magnets for meritless class action suits, intended only to coerce settlements from corporate defendants. Plaintiffs' attorneys game the system to keep even the largest of cases in handpicked state courts. Many [insert state name] companies are harmed by this because of the huge risks of litigating even the most frivolous suits.

S. 353 would address these problems without changing the class action device or changing any plaintiff's substantive rights. The bill would allow for removal in cases where there is minimal diversity and an aggregate amount in controversy of more than $1 million. This would ensure that interstate class action suits are heard in federal court as the Framers intended. It would also increase the efficiency of our courts by allowing for the consolidation overlapping and competing suits in one court.

The class action device is a very important part of our legal system that needs to be strengthened to address the growing abuse problems. This legislation would protect the rights of [insert state name] companies and plaintiff class members, while not affecting any plaintiff's right to bring a lawsuit.

I understand that the Senate will be facing many important issues this year and hope that you will support this important legislation. This legislation is a top priority for our company and I will insure that our employees are apprised of your position on this issue. I deeply appreciate your consideration and thank you on behalf of our [insert number] employees in [insert state name].

Sincerely,