Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2655, the misleadingly-named ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.'' This legislation would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to reinstate a previous, failed version of the rule that was in place from 1983-1993.
Rule 11 allows for the imposition of sanctions on the plaintiff in a civil case if it is determined that a claim lacks sufficient evidence. Currently, Rule 11 allows judges to exercise discretion in determining when to impose these sanctions. This bill, H.R. 2655, mirrors the policy from 1983-1993, when Rule 11 was amended to mandate that sanctions be automatically applied regardless of the specific circumstance of a Rule 11 violation. This policy erodes judicial discretion by forcing judges to apply sanctions in every instance of a violation regardless of the merits. The effect of this change was--and would be under H.R. 2655--disastrous for our judicial system and victims alike. For this reason, the Judicial Conference, the American Bar Association, and the American Association for Justice all strongly oppose this legislation.
As the Judicial Conference Chairs wrote to Judiciary Committee Ranking Member JOHN CONYERS, Jr. in July, from 1983-1993, the ``..... mandatory sanctions provision quickly became a tool of abuse in civil litigation. Seeking to use mandatory sanctions to their advantage, aggressive lawyers filed motions for Rule 11 sanctions in response to virtually every filing in a civil case. Much time and money was spent in Rule 11 battles that had everything to do with strategic gamesmanship and little to do with underlying claims.'' The Judicial Conference also points out that the 1993 rule changes that corrected this misguided policy ``..... followed years of examination and were made on the Judicial Conference's strong recommendation, with the Supreme Court's approval, and after congressional review.''
Unfortunately, we are wasting precious legislative days in this Congress re-litigating this already-solved issue. All empirical evidence from the 1983-1993 existence of the mandatory sanctions points to increased litigation costs and a distraction from the administering of justice.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2655.
Source