ï¿½ 1332; (3) (2) a provision regarding removal; (4) and (3) aconsumer class action "bill of rights." Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights and ImprovedProcedures for Interstate Class Actions. In particular, section 3 would add the following:
Section 1711-Judicial scrutiny of coupon and other noncash settlements (Section 1712 in S. 274/S. Section 1713-Protection against discrimination based on geographic location (Section 1714 in S. 274/S. 1115-Enactment ofJudicial Conference Recommendations)
This provision provides that class notices should present information in "plain English." (10)
In the exercise of their discretion, the federal courts must consider: (11)
-- "Whether the claims asserted involve matters of national interstate interest" 
-- "Whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws other than those of the State in which the action was originally filed"
-- "In the case of a class action originally filed in a State court, whether the class action has been pleaded in a manner that seeks to avoid Federal jurisdiction"
-- "Whether the number of citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed in all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is substantially larger than the number of citizensfrom any other State, and the citizenship of the other members of the proposed class isdispersed among a substantial number of States"
-- "Whether 1 or more class actions asserting the same or similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have been or may be filed." This section contains a similar class action definition as section 3, defining a class action as (A) any civil action filed pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a similar statestatute or rule. Appeals of Class Action Certification Orders (H.R.1115 only). An amendment adoptedby the House Judiciary Committee in reporting H.R. 1115 and S. 2062). Effective Date (H.R. (18)
On October 21, 2003, Senator John Breaux introduced S. 1769 , "National Class Action Act of 2003," as an alternative bill which is considered to be much broader than S. 1751 . On December 15, 2003, Senator Dodd proposed Senate Amendment 2232 to S. 274 which was introduced in the Senate on January 20, 2004, (21) by Senator Grassley. Similarlanguage to that contained in Senate Amendment 2232 is also reflected in S. 2062 (theClass Action Fairness Act of 2004) which was introduced in the Senate on February 10, 2004 (22) andplaced on the Senate Calendar on February 11, 2004. (24)
On July 8, 2004, the proponents of S. 2062 again failed to get 60 votes needed to proceed for further consideration of the bill. (26) This latest action willprobablyaid the demise of the legislation for this legislative year.
The House has passed H.R. 1115 and the Senate Judiciary Committee has reported out S. 274 (both styled the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003). Each (1) creates aconsumer class action bill of rights, and (2) allows the federal courts to try a greater number of largeclass action law suits (100 plaintiffs or more) arising out of state law where the parties come fromdiverse states. Current law requires that each plaintiff have suffered $75,000 in damages and thatthere be complete diversity before a state lawsuit may be filed in or removed to federal court, thatis to say all of the plaintiffs must be citizens residing in different states than all of the defendants. The bills ease the complete diversity requirement and eliminate the requirement of individualdamages of $75,000 as long as the damages suffered by the class as a whole is $5 million or more.
The consumer class action bill of rights in each proposal contains safeguards which provide for judicial scrutiny of coupon and other noncash settlements, protection against a proposed settlementthat would result in a net loss to a class member, protection against discrimination based upongeographic location, and prohibition on a class representative receiving a greater share of the award.
S. 274 / S. 1751 alone includes within its bill of rights explicit provisions for "plain English" settlement notices and settlement notifications for state and federalauthorities. H.R. 1115 instead defers to the notice reforms recommended in theamendments to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure forwarded to Congress by theSupreme Court on March 27, 2003. H.R. 1115 alone permits pre-trial review of a lowerfederal court's grant or denial of class certification and makes its provisions retroactively applicableto suits filed before the date of enactment (but prior to class certification).
On October 21, 2003, Senator John Breaux introduced S. 1769 as an alternative bill which is considered to be much broader than S. 1751 .
On December 15, 2003, Senator Dodd proposed Senate Amendment 2232 to S. 274 , introduced in the Senate on January 20, 2004, by Senator Grassley. Most of these amendmentsare also incorporated into S. 2062 (the Class Action Fairness Act of 2004) which wasintroduced by Senator Grassley in the Senate on February 10, 2004.
On July 8, 2004, S. 2062 failed to get the 60 votes needed to proceed for further consideration which probably will aid the demise of the legislation for this legislative year.