July 26, 1999

Member, U.S. House of Representatives
House Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20515

RE: The Harmful Impact of H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act on Consumer Tobacco Lawsuits

Dear Judiciary Committee Member:

We are writing to urge your opposition to H.R. 1875 the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 because of the adverse effect the bill would have on the ability of injured Americans to hold tobacco companies accountable in court.

Historically, state court class action litigation has been one of the most effective and efficient tools for injured citizens to gain access to the courts, particularly in cases where a defendant has injured a large number of people. Class action cases give plaintiffs the opportunity to consolidate their claims, making it financially possible for them to bring the case. Prior to recent class action victories, tobacco companies had been largely successful in avoiding litigation by making it too expensive for plaintiffs to sue them. H.R. 1875 would make this a likely scenario once again, ending the gains consumers have made in holding tobacco companies accountable for the harm they have done.

H.R. 1875 would severely limit state class action lawsuits by allowing tobacco companies to remove such cases to federal court. The bill gives federal courts jurisdiction over state class action cases except when: 1) the majority of plaintiffs are from the state where the case was filed, 2) all the "primary defendants" are from the state where the case was filed, and 3) the claim involves the law of that state. Because many tobacco companies are incorporated in different states, there will be few, if any, tobacco class action suits against the industry that will not be removable to federal court under this bill. Proponents of H.R. 1875 portray the measure as an effort to end "abusive" class action suits brought in state court. However, the bill threatens to keep legitimate cases out of court and leave injured consumers without compensation. Once removed to federal court, cases will face long delays and may even be decertified.

It is to the advantage of tobacco defendants to have a case transferred from state to federal court. Federal courts have consistently been unwilling to certify classes of tobacco victims in class action suits. Had cases such as Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Scott v. American Tobacco Co. been removed to federal court, they probably would not have been certified as a class.

Federal courts have articulated various reasons for failing to certify federal classes, but it is often based on the idea that the states should be deciding these issues. For example, in reversing class certification of plaintiffs in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir., 1996), the court noted that, since there have been so few tobacco cases, and because it is often difficult to know how state supreme courts would have decided various legal issues, state courts should have first crack at addressing these issues. This bill would give Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco corporations an additional and unwarranted tactical advantage by allowing them to remove state class actions to federal court against the will of the plaintiffs.

Class action lawsuits are one of the few ways that injured consumers can bring claims against the tobacco industry. The importance of these suits is clear in light of the industry’s highly-criticized attempt to wipe them out in the June 20, 1997, deal sought with the state attorneys general. This bill would provide the tobacco industry with a way to avoid liability leaving thousands of injured consumers without compensation. We urge you to oppose H.R. 1875.

Sincerely,

Back to Class Action Letters

Back to Class Action Home Page

Back to Civil Justice Page