US curbs class-action lawsuits

[superwalrus]

lol after looking at this I can't but laugh. Almost NOTHING will be different. Basically, nearly the same number of class actions will be held in state courts than before. If a person wants to, they can guarante it is heard in state court. lol I can't beleive I missed this.

This article was written by Chicken Little.

Walrus

[Relbeek Einre]

Federal appeals courts are, but anyway.

Klast's terminology was wrong. This act won't shield anybody - it'll just raise the bar for plaintiffs in class action lawsuits. There are and have been bills in the works for which "shielded from liability" would be an accurate way of describing the effect, but this isn't one of them.

[superwalrus]

Federal Appeals courts do not affect state courts at all.

Walrus

[superwalrus]

well I should qualify that when it comes to state issues, Federal Courts, even the Supreme Court, when they make a ruling on a state cause of action, the ruling is not binding on the state court.

Walrus

[Embar Angylwrath]

That's a little misleading Walrus. Federal court rulings are binding on states if the matter is a Constitutional one.

[superwalrus]

Embar... read my post before yours. I clarified that federal rulings are not binding when they rule on state causes of action.

Walrus

[Embar Angylwrath]

Do Fed courts routinely take up cases where their ruling is non-binding? My understanding is that if the court decides it's a state issue, the case is remanded back to the state court, or they just refuse to hear it altogether.

Someting about the case not having standing in the court.

[Ddrak]

Reading the bill, it looks like Walrus is wrong. This bill is placing the Federal courts squarely in the position of creating binding rulings through the "out" of regulating interstate commerce.

The avenue of appeal for interstate class actions from a Federal District Court is solely through the Federal Appeals Court, and not through any State courts. Once it hits the District Court, it's out of state hands.

Dd

[superwalrus]

I'm going to respond to Embar first and then Ddrak later after I peruse the bill.

Do Fed courts routinely take up cases where their ruling is non-binding? My understanding is that if the court decides it's a state issue, the case is remanded back to the state court, or they just refuse to hear it altogether.

Someting about the case not having standing in the court.

I don't think you understand how our courts work. The federal courts routinely hear state actions. The rulings of the federal courts on state actions have (zero) bearing on how the state will rule on it in the future. Here are some examples:

Example 1. A person has a civil rights violation claim (a federal claim). That person can file in federal court OR in state court. (state courts are empowered to hear federal issues). Lets say that the person with the civil rights claim ALSO has a state tort action (say for false imprisonment or negligence, etc) that person can get the federal court to rule on that state tort claim in the same lawsuit as the federal claim. The federal court will obviously use federal precedent to rule on the civil rights claim, but they MUST follow the rule of law on the state action in the same way that the Supreme Court of that State has ruled on it. When the federal court decides a state court issue, that ruling is not binding in state courts, even if the Supreme Court of the United States rules a certain way, the Supreme Court of that State has the ultimate say over how their laws are interpretted. (e.g. if the USSC interprets a negligence claim incorrectly, lower state courts do not have to follow that way).

Example 2. In diversity actions between parties that are residents of different states, federal courts have original jurisdiction. Diviersity actions ALWAYS revolve around state claims (because if there was a federal claim involved, we wouldn't need to rely on diversity, we could just invoke regular jurisdiction). When deciding these cases, federal courts MUST decide using the principles set forth by that State's Supreme Court. The same discussion above applies here to that ruling.

Okay, I don't think you understand what binding means. When a federal court makes a ruling in a particular case, that ruling sticks with those parties. No one is disputing that. But the interpretation of the state law by federal courts is not binding as precedent to that state's courts.

And yes, I got an A in Civil Procedure.

Walrus

ps. Federal courts can't remand to state courts

[superwalrus]

Reading the bill, it looks like Walrus is wrong. This bill is placing the Federal courts squarely in the position of creating binding rulings through the "out" of regulating interstate commerce.

The avenue of appeal for interstate class actions from a Federal District Court is solely through the Federal Appeals Court, and not through any State courts. Once it hits the District Court, it's out of state hands.

Okay, after reading page 15 of that bill, I basically shit my pants. 1332 (granting diversity jurisdiction) is something I spent 4 months on in my first year of law school. This change is huge. However, I'm still confused as to what you're saying. The amendments of 1332 only make it *slightly* easier for Federal Courts to hear these cases. And what are the federal courts going to do? Apply state law. All negligence law is state law. All strict liability (well not all, but whatever) is state law.

So how is this different from before? Federal courts must apply the same rules to tort class actions as state courts. And whenever a federal court rules a certain way, they have to rule on state law, and they can't change that state law, they are still wroking within the parameters set by the state.

So I ask again, what is new? (other than the change from complete diversity to partial diversity?)

Walrus

[Ddrak]

The only change is the jurisdiction, not the applicable law. It's better for defendants because class-action plaintiffs can't shop around for a sympathetic state court (say, southern Illinois). So, while the law didn't change, the distribution of results certainly will. I know courts are supposed to be equal but they aren't.

I'm putting no value judgement on that - you could argue it either as a gift to big business or as a levelling of the playing field. I believe what will happen though is you'll see many more class action suits being taken on behalf of residents in a particular state exclusively to avoid federal jurisdiction hitting.

Dd

[superwalrus]

exactly, nothing is going to change except plaintiffs are going to get a little smarter.

Walrus

[vaulos]

Now seems a good time to point out that Europe has about 10% of the negligence lawsuits that we have- and not because they make better shit.

[superwalrus]

vaulos.. what a way to totally not focus on the reason why.

There are a few reasons why Europe has less lawsuits:

1. With the exception of England, the rest of Europe has a COMPLETELY different type of legal system than we do, I mean its on the opposite end of the spectrum.

2. The governments have shifted liability to themselves. So when someone gets injured by a product or on the job, the government automatically pays money to the victim. In America, we have chosen (with the exception of workman's comp) to keep the responsibility where the blame lies: on the people that made the bad shit. The European governments have passed laws saying that when you get government help, you are barred from suing.

I don't know about you, but the beauty of the American system is a lot easier to see. The people that do the wrong have to pay for the wrong.

Walrus