Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1768) to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for trial, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1768, the bill, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation addresses two important issues in the world of complex multidistrict litigation. First, the bill reverses the effect of the 1998 Supreme Court decision in the so-called ``Lexecon'' case. For 30 years prior to the Lexecon decision, a Federal judicial entity, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel, selected the one U.S. district court that was best suited to handle pretrial matters in complex multidistrict cases filed in State and Federal district courts around the country. The district courts selected, called the ``transferee'' court, would then invoke a separate general venue statute to retain all the cases for trial matters. This situation promoted judicial administrative efficiency, then produced results that were more uniformly fair to the litigants.

In the 1998 Lexecon decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute empowering the MDLP to operate did not authorize a transferee court to retain cases after the pretrial matters were concluded. The bill amends the Federal multidistrict litigation statute by explicitly allowing a transferee court to retain jurisdiction over referred cases for trial, for the purposes of determining liability and punitive damages, or to refer them to other districts as it sees fit. It simply responds to the Court's admonition that Congress amend the statute to allow the MDLP and the affected transferee courts to act as they had done without incident for 30 years prior to Lexecon.

Second, the passage of H.R. 1768 ensures that a special ``disaster'' litigation statute enacted last term will operate as Congress intended. Among other prescribed conditions, this new law creates original jurisdiction for U.S. district courts to adjudicate cases in which the accident has led to 75 deaths. This provision, now codified as a part of the Department of Justice authorization act from the 107th Congress, contemplates that the Lexecon problem is solved.

In other words, the new disaster litigation law only creates original jurisdiction for a U.S. district court to accept these cases and qualify as a transferee court under the multidistrict litigation statute. But the transferee court still cannot retain consolidated cases for the determination of liability and punitive damages which effectively guts the statute. In this sense, the Lexecon fix set forth in H.R. 1768, its freestanding merits aside, also functions as a technical correction to the recently enacted disaster litigation statute.

In sum, this legislation speaks to process, fairness, and judicial efficiency. It will not interfere with jury verdicts or compensation rates for litigators.

I urge my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it easier for federal judges to retain jurisdiction of a lawsuit when questions regarding the facts are not in dispute, such as the facts in lawsuits stemming from a plane crash.

For example, a plane crash with 100 fatalities from 25 states can result in 25 different plaintiffs. This legislation allows those 25 cases to be transferred to one court, which reduces the burden on our federal courts.

Thirty years ago federal judges were authorized by circuit and district court case law to transfer cases to their own district or another district for trial. This provided them the ability to consolidate cases in their jurisdiction or refer cases to the appropriated jurisdiction as they saw fit.

Unfortunately, in 1998, the Supreme Court reversed that practice in the Lexecon case because of the language in the statute. The opinion said that Congress could resolve the issue. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today.

The Lexecon decision has prevented the federal court system from adjudicating complex cases even when all parties to a case have agreed on the wisdom of a transfer. That is not the most efficient and effective way for the management of our federal courts.

Our transferee judges are federal judicial experts. We must provide them with the freedom they need so they can supervise day-to-day pretrial proceedings, which include the underlying facts, laws and the possibility of a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.