Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1038) to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain jurisdiction over certain…
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1038) 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.
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. 1038, the bill currently under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1038, the Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2005, reverses the effect of a 1998 Supreme Court case commonly referred to as ``Lexecon,'' which has hampered the Federal court system from adjudicating complex, multidistrict cases that are related by a common fact situation. Just as importantly, the bill functions as a technical correction to a related ``disaster litigation'' provision that was incorporated in the Department of Justice Authorization Act, which Congress passed in 2002.
A little background is in order at this point. During the 107th Congress, I authored legislation to address the Lexecon and disaster litigation problems. As passed under suspension by the House, my bill, H.R. 860, accomplished two goals: First, the bill reversed the effect of the Lexecon case which dealt with the authority of a specially designated U.S. district court to handle complex multidistrict cases consolidated for trial. Pursuant to the decision, the court known as the ``transferee'' court could retain Federal and State cases only for pretrial matters, but not the actual trials themselves.
H.R. 860 simply codified existing practice of the preceding 30 years by allowing the transferee court to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of determining liability and punitive damages, or to refer the cases back to those courts in which the cases were originally filed. This feature streamlines adjudication and enables the transferee court to induce the parties to settle.
Second, H.R. 860 conferred original jurisdiction on U.S. district courts to adjudicate any civil action arising out of a single accident under prescribed conditions, but would remand the case to the State courts for determination of compensatory damages. This portion of H.R. 860 is commonly referred to as the ``disaster litigation'' part of the bill.
The Committee on the Judiciary in the other body took no action on H.R. 860, but the matter was resurrected during House-Senate conference deliberations on the Department of Justice authorization bill. Pursuant to negotiations, the conferees agreed to take half of H.R. 860, the disaster litigation portion, which is currently codified as section 1369 of title 28 of the U.S. Code.
Trying to enact a straight Lexecon fix through the bill before us is meritorious in its own right, promoting as it does judicial efficiency, but there is another problem that the bill solves. The currently codified disaster litigation portion of H.R. 860 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 those cases and qualify as a transferee court
under the multidistrict litigation statute; but the transferee court still cannot retain the consolidated cases for determination of liability and punitive damages, which compromises the operation of the statute.
In this sense, then, the Lexecon fix, its freestanding merits aside, also functions as a technical correction for the recently enacted disaster litigation measure. H.R. 1038, in tandem with the now-codified disaster litigation provisions, will produce what was originally intended when legislation addressing this issue was first proposed, a fix to the Lexecon problem and a disaster litigation measure that really works.
I remind Members that H.R. 1038 is identical to H.R. 1768 from the 108th Congress, which passed the House by a rollcall vote of 418-0. In sum, this legislation speaks to process, fairness and judicial efficiency. It will not interfere with jury verdicts or compensation rates for litigators.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the U.S. Judicial Conference stating their strong support for enactment of H.R. 1038. I urge my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to support this bill.
Judicial Conference
of the United States,
Washington, DC, April 18, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Judicial Conference of the United
States strongly supports enactment of H.R. 1038, the
``Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2005,'' which
you introduced on March 2, 2005 and which was reported
favorably by the House Judiciary Committee on March 17, 2005.
H.R. 1038 will facilitate the resolution of claims by
citizens and improve the administration of justice.
Currently, section 1407(a) of title 28, United State Code,
the multidistrict litigation statute, authorizes the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the Judicial Panel) to
transfer civil actions with common questions of fact that are
pending in multiple federal judicial districts ``to any
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.'' It also requires the Judicial Panel to remand
any such action to the district court in which the action was
filed at or before the conclusion of such pretrial
proceedings, unless the action is terminated before then in
the transferee court.
Although the federal courts had for nearly 30 years
followed the practice of allowing a transferee court to
invoke the venue transfer provision (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a))
and transfer the case to itself for trial purposes, the
Supreme Court in Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes
& Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), held that such statutory
authority did not exist. The Court noted that the proper
venue for resolving the desirability of such self-transfer
authority is the ``the floor of Congress.'' 523 U.S. at 40.
Section 2 of H.R. 1038 responds to the Lexecon decision by
amending 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to allow a judge with a
transferred case to retain it for trial or to transfer it to
another district in the interest of justice and for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses. This section also
provides that any action transferred for trial must be
remanded by the Judicial Panel to the district court from
which it was transferred for the determination of
compensatory damages, unless the transferee court finds for
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the
interests of justice that the action should be retained for
the determined of compensatory damages. As experience has
shown, there is wisdom in permitting the judge who is
familiar with the facts and parties and pretrial proceedings
of a transferred case to retain the case for trial. Also, as
with most federal civil actions, multidistrict litigation
cases are typically resolved through settlement. Allowing the
transferee judge to set a firm trial date promotes the
resolution of these cases.
H.R. 1038 also seeks to make corrections to the Multiparty,
Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002, which was enacted
as section 11020 of the ``21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act'' (Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116
Stat. 1758; now codified in various sections in title 28,
United States Code. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1369, 1391, 1441,
1697, and 1785.)
The Judicial Conference appreciates your support of H.R.
1038. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact
Mark W. Braswell or Karen Kremer, Counsel, Office of
Legislative Affairs (202-502-1700).
Sincerely,
Leonidas Ralph Mecham,
Secretary.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
