Follow us!

    Re: The Class Action Fairness Act of 2004 (S. 2062)

    Posted by sharon on 7/27/04

    On 7/07/04, DD wrote:
    > Good day,
    > I would like some feed back about this bill from the
    > boards' illustrious posters.
    > The Class Action Fairness Act of 2004 (S. 2062, sponsored
    > by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa)
    > Thank you

    This is a partial posting of the following article:

    NAMIC Dismayed Over Fate of Class Action Bill
    WASHINGTON (July 9, 2004)—Late yesterday, the Senate failed
    to reach an agreement on so-called(****my comment: Hmmm, "so-
    called" Freaudian slip?****) non-germane amendments that
    would have permitted the class action reform legislation, S.
    2062, the Class Action Fairness Act, to be considered in the
    Senate. The motion to shut off debate (invoke cloture) failed
    by a vote of 44-43 or 16 votes short of the 60-vote
    requirement. The legislation would allow for the removal of
    certain interstate class action lawsuits to federal court
    from state courts if requested by either plaintiffs or
    defendants.(****my comment: Who would find this beneficial?
    Plaintiffs or defendants? But thanks for including us in the
    ability to do this!*****)

    “We are deeply disappointed that the Senate failed to proceed
    with the class action legislation. This bill had the support
    of 62 Senators and this is an incredible opportunity lost,”
    said David A. Winston, NAMIC federal affairs senior vice
    president. “The legislation is a balanced, common-sense
    solution that addresses the worst abuses of the class action
    process and rationalizes procedures, while preserving
    plaintiffs’ legal rights and providing additional protections
    for consumers,” said Winston.(******my comment: Huh?*********)

    “While a compromise on the consideration on non-germane
    amendments remains possible, as a practical matter, this is
    unlikely,” said Winston.(*****my comment: Gee, why would that

    Currently, plaintiffs and their attorneys are taking
    advantage of a loophole in jurisdictional rules in order to
    keep large, nationwide class actions out of federal courts
    where they are more appropriate.(****my comment: Can anyone
    site numerous specific provable instances of this abuse by
    plaintiffs?*****) The class-action measure would require that
    most such multi-plaintiff lawsuits be filed in federal court,
    shifting them away from state courts, some of which have
    become famous for large settlements with little for class
    members and big fees for the trial lawyers that filed the
    cases.(*****my comment: Forgot to mention the businesses that
    have been forced to stop a particular unethical practice, so
    multitudes more are not harmed by their behavior. Minor

    “We realize that time is now running out; however, NAMIC
    remains committed to passing class action reform legislation
    this year.(*****my comment: Define the word "reform"****) We
    will continue to press our case with Members of Congress and
    we are cautiously optimistic (****my comment: We all know
    what "cautiously optimistic means!****) that the bill will be
    considered again prior to adjournment,” said Winston.

    View the vote summary on the motion to invoke cloture on S.


    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.