Letter to the United States Senate from
a Coalition of Organizations Opposed to S.353,
the Class Action "Fairness" Act
April 20, 2000Dear Senator:
We are writing to urge your opposition to S. 353, the so-called Class Action "Fairness" Act of 1999, and the House version of the bill, H.R. 1875, which we understand might be attached to the Small Business Liability Reform Act (S. 1185 and H.R. 2366). Class actions are filed when many individuals are similarly injured and are essential to protect the rights of people whose individual claims do not warrant separate litigation. They deter and encourage reform of deceptive and fraudulent business practices that cost Americans billions of dollars a year. In addition, class actions do all this while conserving limited judicial resources that would be wasted in duplicative proceedings.
We have four main objections to the bills:
S. 353 and H.R. 1875 will end state court jurisdiction over most state class actions. Under these bills, most defendants will be able to choose whether to remove state class actions to federal court. This will be true even in cases that have a majority of plaintiffs from one state and that involve only that state's law. Under our Constitutional framework of limited federal jurisdiction, this transfer of judicial power to federal courts from the states is both substantial and inappropriate. All of these class actions involve alleged violations of state law and state courts should be the principal interpreters of state law.
S. 353 and H.R. 1875 will result in considerable delay for plaintiffs seeking a remedy and further burden the already overburdened federal judiciary. The current high vacancy rate in the federal judiciary and the increased federalization of criminal justice matters that traditionally were in the purview of state courts already leads to delay of justice in the federal courts. S. 353 will substantially aggravate this delay, postponing justice not only for class action cases, but for all federal civil cases.
S. 353's regulation of attorneys fees is unwise and unnecessary. Legislative language cannot deal fairly with the myriad of situations that present themselves in class action cases, from cash fund settlements, to injunctive relief cases, to in-kind settlements, to settlements involving hybrid forms of relief. A one-size-fits-all federal statutory regulation of attorneys fees is unwise; courts should be able to tailor fees to the particular case in order to ensure that the proper incentives exist so that plaintiffs can attract quality representation.
S. 353's mandatory Rule 11 sanctions will hurt plaintiffs. History shows that mandatory Rule 11 sanctions were used disproportionately against plaintiffs' attorneys, particularly in the civil rights arena, and those attempting to extend the law in innovative ways. There is no reason to believe that mandatory sanctions will not again be disproportionately used against these same type of litigants, having a chilling effect on innovative attempts to protect citizens’ rights.
Class actions are an integral tool in the fight to vindicate plaintiffs’ legal rights. The Class Action "Fairness" Act would go far in rendering this tool ineffective. Therefore, we strongly urge you to oppose S. 353 and H.R. 1875.
Sincerely,
Citizens for Corporate Accountability and Individual Rights
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Consumer Federation of America
Handgun Control, Inc.
National Association of Consumer Advocates
National Consumers League
National Employment Lawyers Association
Public Citizen
U.S. PIRG
Violence Policy Center