As LCJ Forms Class Action Subcommittee, Congress Takes Closer Look at CAFA
Jun 14, 2012

Congress held a hearing to take a closer look at CAFA and its effect on the civil justice system

                On June 1, 2012, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution conducted a hearing on “Class Action Seven Years After the Class Action Fairness Act,” taking a closer look at CAFA and the effect its had on the civil justice system.
                In past years, LCJ engaged directly with federal rule makers to reform Rule 23’s application to mass tort and complex cases by permitting permissive interlocutory appeals of certification decisions.
                Currently, LCJ is forming an “FRCP 23 Class Actions” Subcommittee to improve Rule 23’s provisions on standards and guidelines for class-actions.
                As part of the hearing, Martin H. Redish, Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy at Northwestern University School of Law, testified that CAFA has improved the legal system and that Congress should adopt reform legislation to solve the problems caused by cy pres relief:
 
“In 2005, Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act, which has gone a long way towards reducing some of the abuses imposed on out-of-state corporate defendants in state court class actions. It is now time for Congress to remedy some of the most important pathologies in administration of the federal class action. The ever-increasing resort to cy pres awards as part of the resolution of federal class actions, while of legitimately great concern in and of itself, is in many ways merely a symptom of deeper and more fundamental defects in administration of the modern class action. Simply put, in far too many instances the class action proceeding is viewed by courts, advocates and the public as some sort of roaming device for doing justice. In reality, it is nothing of the sort. It is, rather, nothing more than a complex procedural joinder device, laid out in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—appearing in between Rule 22 (Interpleader) and Rule 24 (Intervention). It is nothing more and nothing less than that.”
 
                In addition, John H. Beisner testified on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform that CAFA will be remembered as a “milestone in a crusade for a more just and more effective civil justice system”
 
"Gone are the days of plaintiffs routinely bringing interstate class actions and relying on lax state-court class-certification standards (standards that ignored the due-process interests of both class members and defendants) in the hopes of certifying a class, only to coerce American businesses into unfair settlements that benefitted only class counsel."
 
                Other witnesses included Thomas M. Sobol, Partner, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
 
                For more details and video of the hearing, visit the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing website.
 
Username:
Password:
Forgoten Password? Click Here.