Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act.

The main purpose of the bill is to make it easier to remove State cases to Federal courts where large corporate defendants have numerous advantages over consumers, patients, and injured workers.

This bill is yet another attempt by the Republicans to tilt the legal playing field in favor of large corporations. It will clog the Federal courts, drain judicial resources, upset well-established law, and delay justice for plaintiffs seeking to hold corporations accountable for harming consumers or injuring workers.

This bill is part of a general effort by the Republicans to close off access to the courts to ordinary Americans. With every step the Republicans take, whether it be to put forward bills to make class action suits more difficult, to remove more local cases to Federal courts, to reclassify more lawsuits as frivolous and subject to mandatory sanctions, or to oppose legislative attempts to limit mandatory arbitration clauses, they are transforming our system of justice.

Our courts are being turned into a forum where only very rich people can get justice, where corporations can easily escape liability, and where consumers and the injured can get no relief, and it is all tilted one way.

There is nothing in this bill or in any other bill put forward by the other side that will help ordinary consumers hold big corporations responsible for actions that harm the little guy.

Under this so-called Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act, anytime there is a case with at least one instate, nondiverse, and out-of-state, diverse, defendant, the defendants will use this forum shopping bill law to delay justice.

These attempted removals will result in contentious disputes over whether the court has jurisdiction. It will drain court time, as the courts will have to engage in almost a minitrial, reviewing pleadings, affidavits, and other evidence submitted by the parties since this bill turns a simple procedural determination into a merits determination.

At a minimum, the bill will allow corporate defendants to successfully force the plaintiff to expend their limited resources on what should be a simple procedural matter.

Under this bill, this preliminary decision would become a baseless, time-consuming merits inquiry of the case before a second time- consuming merits inquiry on the substance. While large corporations can easily accommodate such cost, injured workers, consumers, and patients cannot.

I am amazed by some of my colleagues who, with this bill, will bring even more cases to our Federal courts. I don't need to remind you that our Federal courts are facing an enormous number of judicial vacancies with no end in sight due to delays in confirmations in the other body.

Yet, this bill would increase the workload of the Federal courts with cases based on the flimsiest of Federal jurisdiction. It makes no sense. This bill will take up valuable Federal court time with State claims based on State law, preventing the Federal courts from hearing and managing cases that are properly before them.

Finally, despite its name, this bill is not about fraud. Indeed, the proponents cite no example that alleges actual fraud.

I would say this is a bill in search of a problem. I would say that, if I didn't understand, the true purpose of the bill is not to stop fraud, but to further tilt the scales of justice in favor of big corporations over the needs of ordinary Americans.

For these reasons, I oppose it. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill as well.

We should defeat this bill and start making Congress great again.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source