More Corporate Tort Reform Laws Passed
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was brought to live because of “abuses” happening in class action lawsuits. The bill’s text states that over the past decade “abuses of the class action device âÂ?¦have- (A) harmed class members with legitimate claims and defendants that have acted responsibly (B) adversely affected interstate commerce; and (C) undermined public respect for our judicial system.” (2005, 2-3; 16-20, 1-4). So a reform of class action was decided to be needed.
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 says that it removes biases from court rooms by sending most class action lawsuits to the federal level (who are notoriously biased towards corporations and are much busier than their state counter parts) where instate and interstate bias can not be formed. The bill says this happens because lawyers would move their cases to judges who are more favorable towards them. So, intern, getting rid of all this would “(1) assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members with legitimate claims; (2) restore the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance under diversity jurisdiction; and (3) benefit society by encouraging innovation and lowering consumer prices.” (2005 4; 8-15).
The bill says that it lets the district courts defer cases to the national court in cases where “more than one-third but less than two-thirds of the members of the proposed plaintiff classes âÂ?¦ are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed, based on consideration of whether: (1) the claims involve matters of national or interstate interest; (2) the claims will be governed by laws of the State where the action was originally filed or by the laws of other States; (3) the class action has been pleaded in a manner that seeks to avoid Federal jurisdiction; (4) the action was brought in a forum with a distinct nexus with the class members, the alleged harm, or the defendants; (5) the number of citizens of the State of original filing in all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is substantially larger than the number of citizens from any other State.” And they must defer cases where, “(1) more than two-thirds of the members of the proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State where the action was originally filed, at least one defendant is a defendant from whom significant relief is sought, whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted, and who is a citizen of the State where the action was originally filed, and principal injuries resulting from the alleged or related conduct were incurred in such State; and (2) during the three-year period preceding filing, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons; or (3) two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State where the action was originally filed.” (ibid.). That is about every type of civil action lawsuit filed in state courts.
Another thing that The Class Action Fairness Act does for the federal level is it, “Prohibits a Federal district court from approving: (1) a proposed coupon settlement absent a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) a proposed settlement involving payments to class counsel that would result in a net monetary loss to class members, absent a finding that the loss is substantially outweighed by nonmonetary benefits; or (3) a proposed settlement that provides greater sums to some class members solely because they are closer geographically to the court.” (2005, S.5). The bill limits the amount of lawyers fee’s and actually lets the courts decide the lawyer’s fee in class action suit.
The bill never really says how civil action lawsuits affect interstate commerce or undermines the “public respect for our judicial system”; but it does do a good job in outline how to better client’s rights when it comes to civil action lawsuits and lawyers. But the bill makes it seem as if lawyers are the problem with the legal system and that the court or here to do us justice.
Unstated in the text of this bill is a case that was taken to the Supreme Court before the bill was passed. Campbell v. State Farm (2003) limits the amount of punitive damage a person can incur. The payout ratio now is based on how much the person is worth and how much they lost during time of injury but not how much the corporation or company is worth. The court overturned a ruling by district courts on the amount of punitive damage Campbell received from State Farm saying a 4-to-1 ratio “might be close to the line of constitutional impropriety;” this is a court ruling in the federal courts were almost all class action lawsuits will be sent (Court, 2004). In affect, this puts caps on all federal class action lawsuits and cases seeking money for medical and punitive damages.
Again this has already happened. The implications seem small but this was another bill in the bucket, another drop of water in that vast lake of emptiness that surrounds Congress. We as a population ignored The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 as it pass by, and watched the court case Campbell v. State Farm go the other way, and as a whole we did nothing. For nothing is what we are trained to do, we elected Congress so ignore them after the action of the lights and glamour is turned down. Let them do their stuff. Well this is a message to the people who didn’t elect these officials or to the people who did; everyday some bill or law is passed and everyday more and more laws are made and removed, added, subtracted and amended. And yet every year we see another battle slip away through the quietness of mediocrity. The problem is sometimes you don’t know there is a problem until it’s too late.
