Class Action Fairness Act of 2003-Motion to Proceed

CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2003—MOTION TO PROCEED

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as a former business person and technology executive who has direct experience with class action litigation, I agree with the proponents of this bill that class action cases that impact Americans in every State ought to be litigated in Federal court. American business should be focused on developing innovative technologies, growing and creating jobs, and securing our economic future. American businesses should not be forced to defend themselves simultaneously in the exact same case in as many as seven different States at the same time.

I believe the current consolidation mechanism in Federal court offers both consumers and businesses a fair and efficient means of having their claims heard, and I support allowing more cases to be tried in Federal courts.

Unfortunately, I cannot support the bill before us today. While some positive changes have been made to the bill, the bill would close the State courthouse doors to almost all class action cases and move those cases to Federal court. The bill could overwhelm our Federal court system and cause delay not just in the cases that are being removed, but in the important class action matters that are already in Federal court.

I come from a State that is ranked as having the third best civil justice system in the country, according to the Chamber of Commerce. I recognize the rights of my constituents to have their claims heard in our own State courts and according to our own State laws. In 1993, hundreds of people in my State became critically ill and several died as a result of eating Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers tainted with deadly E-coli bacteria. Five hundred of those victims and family members came together and filed a class action lawsuit in State court for damages as a result of the injuries they sustained. The case was settled for $12 million. This is not frivolous litigation.

In fact, not one of the hundreds of businesses I have talked to about this bill has ever suggested that any abusive or frivolous class action litigation had occurred in Washington State. However, even though most of the plaintiffs in this class action were from Washington, and the case was about personal injury, a claim traditionally heard by State courts, if this lawsuit were to be filed in the future, this bill would give defendants the right to remove the case to Federal court causing additional expense and grievances for the victims in this case.

I have three concerns about the bill. We need a better balance between cases being heard in State and Federal court. We need better protections for civil rights cases and a time deadline for moving cases to Federal courts.

First, we need to have the proper balance between addressing lawsuits in State and Federal courts. Currently, virtually all class actions are tried in State court. However, by moving virtually all of the lawsuits to Federal courts, this bill does not provide that balance. I support an approach that provides for keeping some cases in State courts and improving the flexibility to try more cases in Federal courts.

I have heard from many of the business leaders in my State who have expressed their concerns about the increasing challenges of defending themselves against the same claims in multiple states. I have heard their frustrations about seeing the claims dismissed in one State only to have them filed in another. I have heard from some of the oldest established businesses in my State to the newest. From Weyerhaeuser to Microsoft to AT&T Wireless, Intel, Amazon, the Madrona Group, Expedia, and Starbucks.

These employers have been forced to defend class action suits that are either dismissed or settled in a manner that provides little benefit to the class but great financial benefit to the lawyers. That isn't right, and that is why I have asked these companies in my State to analyze what the effects would be of removing any case to Federal court in which less than one third of the plaintiffs were from the State where the case was filed. I have committed to each of these businesses that I will continue to work with them to find a way to move more cases to Federal court while keeping cases that primarily affect a group of consumers in a State in that State's court.

While I believe that finding a better balance between class action lawsuits in State and Federal court is critical, I also cannot support this bill in the absence of protections that allow higher portions of settlement awards to be made to those individuals who agree to act as lead plaintiffs in class action cases. In addition, I believe that there needs to be a fixed date for defendants to seek to move a class action case to Federal court. As the bill is written now, a class action case can be proceeded all the way through trial and into jury deliberations—and defendants can still seek to remove it to Federal court even at this late date. I do not believe this serves the interests of justice. This provision should be fixed.

I have communicated my three concerns to supporters of the bill. I am disappointed that these straightforward changes, which are in the interests of both consumers and businesses, were not included in the bill. Absent these improvements to the bill, I cannot vote for the measure before us today.