Res Ipsa Loquitur

Ahem ... federalism ... bah, never mind.

*cough* Article III *cough*

Wasn't one of the main purposes of class-action suits to allow "private attorney generals" to make sure that individual rights were protected? Now corporations are whining and lobbying that they want the Feds to cut the arms off these private attorney generals.

And surprise surprise, Republicans -- the party of corporations -- are responding helpfully.

One thing that confuses me is that, while I knew Congress often does things to keep cases OUT of Federal courts -- by limiting the types of cases those courts can hear -- this is the first time I've heard of Congress attempting to bring cases IN to Federal court that wouldn't otherwise fall exclusively under Federal jurisdiction.

And Republicans mope about being called the party of the rich. Here, we've got them picking up whole lawsuits and helpfully dropping them in Federal courts -- when CORPORATIONS ask for it.

But the little guy who has a little lawsuit that's important to him can't sue in Federal court because of the jurisdictional amount requirements, diversity requirements, etc. Congress is saying that if you want to sue a BIG guy, you HAVE to come to Federal court because, well, that's where the big guys want to be. If you're a little guy, too bad -- go to state court, we don't want to help you.

Lame, elitist garbage, that's all it is.

Name one class action lawsuit that helped "the little guy" in a real substantive way and I can find 5 that were nothing more than a cash machine for the attorney (75,000 billable hours in the RJ Reynolds case in Madison County? Are you kidding me!).

Did you enjoy your coupon for your free bottle of Poland Spring Water? How about the free rental at Blockbuster? I know the lawyers enjoyed the multimillion dollar legal fees. But then again, they're just doing it to help "the little guy".

Besides, it's not like they're restricting the right to sue, it's simply avoiding forum shopping. There's ads in the Belleville News Democrat (Madison County) for plaintiffs so firms can sue there. It's nuts.

Oh come on ... EVERY class action lawsuit helps "the little guy" because "the little guy" wouldn't have the resources or power to sue by himself.

You mock the returns for individuals in class action lawsuits, but the fact is that corporations are constantly piling on minor annoyances by cheating MANY people a LITTLE BIT -- adding up to huge profits but not enough individual damage to make a lawsuit worthwhile.

The primary point of class action lawsuits is to take into consideration the amount that would make a company STOP behaving in the manner that got it sued. Just making them pass out a couple freebies isn't going to do it -- if they're making a profit solely by several million tiny acts of bad business, they need to be PUNISHED.

Anyway, you're sidestepping the real issue, which is that Republicans are tripping over themselves to help corporations solve their "money problems" while ignoring the fact that these suits get to a jury in the first place because REAL ABUSES have occured, that have made these companies big bucks -- real abuses which allowed these companies to spend the big bucks on lobbying that is getting this legislation passed in the first place.

Sorry to do an "and besides..." post, but I have to get this in:

You moan about the fact that millions of dollars go to attorneys who pursue class action suits. What about the millions/billions of dollars corporations pour into defending themselves for clearly abusive behaviour? Again, the "little guy" can't afford to hire 20 litigators to work full time to help him go after a corporation that's putting out a defective $5 product, or using misleading advertising. But you can bet that that corporation has 20 litigators waiting to pounce on any claim that "little guy" might file.

This is another reason class action suits help the "little guy" -- by making the resources available to go after that defective $5 product equal to the resources available to the corporation defending against any potential claims.

I'm not against class actions per se, I just think they've been outrageously abused....hence the FBI investigation into all those in Mississippi.

It's not a Republican/Democrats thing. It's not an evil big corporation/little guy thing. It's an unethical lawyer thing. Frankly I think much of it could be curbed by judicious application of Rule 11. But judges don't seem to be willing to do that.

So you get legislation like this.

Ok, well just to reiterate, the "downside" you have such trouble seeing is that corporations are going to be less afraid of class action lawsuits.

Currently, I see enough abuses on the scale that can only be addressed by class action suits that I know corporations aren't THAT afraid of such suits. Misleading advertising, absurdly poor quality products, horrible customer service when people DO complain -- corporations are constantly pushing the boundiaries of fair practice in every direction. That's what a free market makes them do.

If this legislation passes, there's only one court for class action suits to go to (and don't forget, federal courts are already insanely overburdened -- now we're dropping a bunch of new cases on them). We're just going to see more instances of corporations screwing individuals on a tiny scale, without fear of ever being accountable to anyone.

That's the "downside." It amazes me how teary-eyed Republicans can get over faceless, inhuman corporations -- relax, if they go bankrupt, their executives will walk away with lifetime compensation packages anyway, just as they would have if the company succeeded. The fact that corporations might have less to fear from abusing their consumers is not something I'd celebrate.

I'm not ignoring the real issue that these cases get to jury b/c of "real abuses". If there are real abuses then I'm sure they would go to a jury in a Fed court just like they would in a state court.

The issue is there are WAY too many cases that make it to the jury in state court where there are NO real abuses. These bogus claims are what is leading to the public support for controlling the out of control class action suits.

Furhter Federal courts are better equipped to handle complex cases with national implications. You also have the additional problem with conflicts of interest w/ state judge elections. Example: Ninety percent of judicial campaign donations in Madison County come from lawyers; 75 percent from plaintiff lawyers (the ones who instigate lawsuits) according to a study by Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch (I-LAW). Hmmm, seems like a little more influence here that "big business" and Republicans.

Companies do and will still fear the class action. IMO corporations are already TOO afraid of these uits. Besides this fear doesn't translate into better business practices because most of the time it is completely unforeseeable they would be exposed to liability (I'm talking about the suits like Poland Spring and Publishers Clearinghouse, not bona fide corporate fraud). This fear and these suits simply are a hidden tax on all of us who pay for them in increased insurance prices and an increase in the cost of goods.

Remember- we aren't talking about eliminating class actions, just moving the large cases with national implication to Federal court. We are not taking away this tool for folks to remedy a wrong, just putting it in a better tool box, for everyone.

Rita- I whole heartedly agree with you that this is an ethical problem in the legal community. I enjoy the arguments made by trial lawyers against tort reform for med mal claiming Dr.s need to do a better job policing themselves (which is true), but can't see that the argument squarely applies to them.

One more point- class action lawsuits are NOT the place to address poor product quality and poor customer service. That's the place for a free market economy. Courts are not the answer to everything.

I think you've got it squarely backwards. A free market pressures companies to deliver better products b/c of competition, not the other way around.

Nah ... a completely free market without liablity hinders trade, because nobody wants to be the first to try anything new. I sure wouldn't buy a new product if I thought that if it cut off my leg, I'd be stuck. Such a policy makes sure that the first people to try anything bear the entire cost of finding out whether the product is reliable -- essentially, I'd be paying the cost of everyone finding out that the product cuts of legs.

Granted, a lost leg wouldn't require a class action suit. But on a smaller scale the same goes for any new product or service -- I'm more likley to try them because I have something other than the word of a faceless corporation to rely on.

Otherwise, new products from new companies wouldn't be nearly as attractive -- for all I know the company is a total scam that will disappear in a week, leaving me and millions of other customers with defective products.

Once again you're distorting the legislation.

NO ONE IS REMOVING LIABILITY.

There is no movement to remove liability from corporations. It's simply to get a handle on the trial lawyers and their bank robber tactics.

By the way, how is a class action suit in a state court vs. a Fed court going to be any different in the situation you descibe above?

First a company selling bogus, knowingly defective products probably won't be around long enough to have enough customers to certify a suit. They'll get taken down by individuals first or will never generate a customer base that big. Second, even if they do, the $1,000,000 question- How does moving this case to the Federal courts harm the customer's rights to suit?

1) My comment about removing liability was in not response to the legislation, but to this statement: "One more point- class action lawsuits are NOT the place to address poor product quality and poor customer service. That's the place for a free market economy. Courts are not the answer to everything."

2) Moving this to a federal court harms the customers right to sue in at least 2 ways.

First, having a choice of forums is a benefit. State courts exist to serve the residents of those states. We're taking away benefit of the option of those courts for all plaintiffs in all large class action suits. We're not just doing it for a state or two that has a suspicious number of large verdicts -- we're doing it across the board. Whatever your reasons as a plaintiff for wanting a state forum, you don't get that choice anymore.

We're also not balancing the removal of this right with any similar limitation for corporations who want to sue -- basically, we're handicapping consumers. Corporations can still sue anywhere they can get normal jurisdiction.

This goes way beyond just addressing excessive verdicts -- it takes an entire set of forums out of the picture for a particular class. Even assuming that there's a problem with excessive verdicts in some state courts, this is like treating a trick knee by amputating the leg.

Second, Federal courts are swamped already. Class action suits are by nature big, hulking things that take time to work out. Pouring more of them into federal court is going to delay both current class action suits in federal court (which nobody is complaining about, at least not expressly) and the state class action suits that are getting yanked from the forum the complainant originally preferred.

In sum, this bill takes away an entire set of forums for one side of a particular type of controversy (plaintiffs), and backlogs them all into a single, already burdened system. This is done in the name of reducing illegitimate verdicts, but the "fix" is not targeted at cases that are more likely to be frivolous -- ALL class action cases, even the most clearly justified, even those already in federal court, are suffering the same penalties.

Meanwhile, defendants, without distinction for the merits of the claims against them, are seeing a boon -- cases brought against them will take longer, and can only be brought in one particular forum. Class action defense lawyers no longer have to worry about knowing state court systems -- big corporations are beyond those. The get to have one court, one set of rules, and one set of judges for all possible disputes against them. Pretty cozy, no?