Bush Signs Bill to Curb Class-Action Suits

1 hour ago Listen to Audio

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer


President Bush signs S.5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, in a ...More...
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Friday signed a bill that he says will curtail multimillion-dollar class action lawsuits against companies and help end "the lawsuit culture in our country."

The legislation aims to discourage class action lawsuits by having federal judges take them away from state courts. It was a victory for conservatives who hope it will lead to other lawsuit limits and for businesses that have complained for decades that state judges and juries have been too generous to plaintiffs.

The president has described class action suits, in which a single person or a small group can represent the interests of thousands in court, as often frivolous. He said greedy lawyers have taken advantage of the state class action suit system by filing cases in places where they know they can win big-dollar verdicts _ while their clients get only small sums or coupons giving them discounts for products of the company they just sued.

"This bill helps fix the system," Bush said in the East Room of the White House, surrounded by Democratic and Republican lawmakers for his first bill-signing ceremony of the year. "Congress has done it's duty."

Consumer groups and trial lawyers fought against the bill, but lost their struggle when Republicans gained seats in last fall's elections and Democrats defected on the issue.

"The House of Representatives joined the Senate in sending a clear message to the nation: the rights of large corporations that take advantage of seniors, low-wage workers and local communities are more important than the rights of average American citizens," said Helen Gonzales of USAction, a liberal, pro-consumer activist group.

During the brief ceremony, Bush repeatedly described the bill as just a beginning in his drive to place much broader restraints on the American legal system. Next up, he said, should be curbs on asbestos litigation and medical malpractice awards.

The president, the GOP and businesses have criticized what they see as a litigation crisis that enables lawyers to reap huge profits while businesses _ and thus consumers _ are stuck with the bill.

"We're making important progress toward a better legal system," he said. "There's more to do. ... We have a responsibility to confront frivolous lawsuits head-on."

Under the legislation Bush signed, class-action suits seeking $5 million or more would be heard in state court only if the primary defendant and more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state. But if fewer than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the primary defendant, and more than $5 million is at stake, the case would go to federal court.

Businesses failed to get the measure to apply to suits already in the courts.

The bill also would limit lawyers' fees in settlements where plaintiffs get discounts on products instead of financial settlements. The measure links the fees to the coupon's redemption rate or the actual hours spent working on a case.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said that moving those cases to federal court will ensure that state judges will no longer "routinely approve settlements in which the lawyers receive large fees and the class members receive virtually nothing."

But Democrats say Republicans just want to protect corporations from taking responsibility for their wrongdoing by keeping them clear of state courts that might issue multimillion-dollar verdicts against them.

Federal courts are expected to allow fewer large class action suits to go forward, which Democrats say means more businesses will get away with wrongdoing and fewer ordinary people will be protected.

"It's the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. "And these people are saying that your state isn't smart enough, your jurors aren't smart enough" to hear those cases.

___

On the Net:

Information on the bill, S. 5, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov


Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

they aren't.

Well if you admit that as a truth then you have to flush the entire legal system down the pooper.

f!@# the people.

All hail the haves!

In terms of financial matters? In a lot of ways, yeah. People blame companies instead of themselves far too often.

Sure, class action is when a large group of people, typcially consumers, will hold a corporation accountable for bad product or the damage done to them as a result of using a product.... and Bush would like to curtail that.

.protect your consitituants, not the nations people.

Nice. No surprise here.

c-

I agree, but this is not the answer. This will hurt legit cases.

That can be true, but in class action suits, that is typically not the case, it is when as individuals, we would not be able to address a major corporation due to lack of resorces on an issue that a health and/or safety risk, but as a group, in a class action, we can have some say with them.

I suspect the tobbacco companies could be debatebly or arguabley excluded as far as people blaming them for not taking on the responsibility themselves, because no one force anyone to shove a stick on fire into their mouths, regardless of whether the person knew or was told it was bad or not, a sick on fire next to your face can't possible be a good thing.

That said, a huge however would be, the tobbacco company class action did result in the fact that they DID know it was a health danger and DENIED IT, and the other result was that they had to label their product with warnings and stop selling it (tarketing advertising) toward youth.

Unfair business practises and deceptive advertising are things class action suits can often expose - and the ability to do this is pretty important, to me at least.

Ralph Nader is "the man" when it comes to consumer safety, he really set alot of precidents. I suspect putting limits on class action suits to hold corporations accountable may undermine some of that work.

c-

PS: Someone suing McDonalds because coffee is hot, is pretty weak. Of course coffee is hot. Should you put a cup in your lap in your car just because McDonalds has a drive through window? Em, no. Should you be able to sue over it? Able? as in allowed - sure. Should you ? as in, does it make any sence - debatable.


Just as common sense should not have to be legislated, creating legislation because of lack of it should not have to occur. Corporations can take care of themselves, usually have plenty of profit to settle out of court, and they do not need the Federal Government's protection.

What they all really need is to have "workmen's compensation" revamped. Talk about a rat hole of wasted and stolen money - it's outrageous. Small businesses can hardly be in business at all with the going rate of Workman's Compenstation Insurance, and people who lie about injuries can get, my experience has been, over a full year paid time off. It's insane, and probably worthy of its own thread.

c-

Agreed.

The suit against McDonald's wasn't filed because the coffee was hot. It was filed because they handed her a cup of boiling coffee which fell into her lap and disfigured her genitals. I'd sue also.

me too

the suits i don't like are when a kid's parents sue mcdonalds because their kid is fat.

Regardless ... how many times did that happen? Once? And you mangled the entire legal system b/c of that? I heard those fucking Repesentatives talking ... "Look at this one case? Look at this other case?" OK. In fucking less than 1% of cases juries go insane. So you take away the constitutionally protected right to redress your grievances in court b/c a handful of juries are stupid? No.

How come when our soldiers torture Iraqis, it's a few bad apples, but when lawyers get a little money for an injured person, it's "the whole fucking system is out of order!"

Really? Exactly how is Bush "curbing" legitimate class action plaintiffs' access to courts?

I suggest you do some research of cases deliberately filed in judicial hellholes such as Madison County, Illinois where the Plaintiffs from around the country forum shop and choose state courts in counties such as this in order to get large jury verdicts from sympathetic juries rather than bringing them in either: a) the county most-related to the suit, or b) federal court.

The bill does not "curb" a plaintiff's right to bring the suit, it merely states that it must be brought in a legitimate state court or federal district court. But then again, everything is Bush's fault.

Alright, I'm going to try to make the case for this legislature curbing someone's right to go court. It's not because federal juries are smart and local juries like fuck over corporations. It's because federal courts are likely to throw out cases without hearing them if they're from multiple states if the states have different requirements in order to bring suit.

So I use a widget. I get cancer. I find out that 40 other people in 20 other states got cancer after using the widget. Better yet, the 40 of us represent 98% of the people who used widgets. We go to court, but my state requires 30 years use of a product before I can claim it gave me cancer. Another state requires detectable traces of a product in your urine in order for you to sue. Federal court says, "These laws are different. You can't sue together as part of a class action suit." Well, class action suit was my only shot at suing for my cancer. Because if I sue by myself, even if my cancerous tumors, when viewed in a cat scan, spell out the words "WE WERE CAUSED BY WIDGETS," one case of widget-spelling cancer does not prove that widgets caused it. Thusly, I cannot air my grievance against the widget company in court.


Plus the fact that if widgets blew my face off, I can get all the surgery paid for, but only $125,000 for pain and suffering. Would it have been unfair for me to get $3 million for the pain and suffering of losing half my face to a widget? Do you think half my face is only worth $125,000? I value both halves of my face very highly. Even if most of my pain and suffering goes to the evil trial lawyer, don't I deserve the satisfaction of the face-stealing company having to pay $3 million? Is $125,000 going to keep them from blowing off other faces? Maybe they make more profit then that in a minute selling deffective widgets?

I don't think that Bush is particularly concerned about frivolous lawsuits. What he is concerned with is gutting the Democratic party further. Much of the big money coming into the Democratic party comes from...tah dah! trial lawyers. Cut off their livelihoods, cut off a major source of cash flow to the Democratic party. It's all about strategy; it's not about frivolous lawsuits--of which, realistically, there aren't oodles of anyway.

I wonder how many of you would be saying these things if the bill came from Clinton.

Hey, I did my bitching about NAFTA.

Accepted. And you missed my pun.

Did you really use the word "widget" multiple times? Your law professor would be so proud.