In the weeks since Republicans have taken a majority leadership in Congress, House Republicans have proposed a bill that would essentially end litigation within a class action and/or Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”). These essential procedural mechanisms largely improve the chances of less-fortunate individuals when they are harmed by large corporations, pharmaceutical companies, or big business. Class actions and MDLs allow plaintiffs to band together in effort to assert an economically viable claim, often in a one consolidated jurisdiction. By combining these actions, the Courts are provided with financial and judicial relief, and injured parties can receive optimal legal representation in a timely manner. Without the assistance of these procedural mechanisms, individual plaintiffs with limited capital who suffer from the same injuries and negligence would be expected to litigate on behalf of themselves. Corporate giants such as Merck, Bayer, and Pfizer are represented by some of the most high-profile law firms in the nation, and they also have massive budgets set aside for legal representation; corporations will not suffer the same negative consequences from the passage of this bill.
The title of the nefarious bill, “Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017,” was introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican and chair of the House Judiciary Committee. The bill’s provisions read more like a wish list for corporate America rather than some purported mechanism to distinguish meritorious from non-meritorious claims. Most importantly, it constructs obstacles for the sole purpose of reducing the chances corporations will be held accountable for wrongdoing.
For class actions, the bill would preclude certification of the action unless the “party seeking to maintain such a class action affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class member suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named class representative.” This requirement is materially and drastically at odds with the existing procedural requirements in state and federal courts that claims of the representative be “typical” of those within the class.
But the bill goes on to make life for plaintiffs even harder in class actions. It precludes lawyers from suing on behalf of relatives and employees—or any other client with whom they have EVER represented! This would mean a lawyer could never even represent a former client, even for unrelated matters. Of course, the bill has no corollary provision that restricts defense counsel in any similar fashion.
In the MDL context, the bill places a new requirement for plaintiffs to submit evidence of their injury within 45 days of the case being transferred to the MDL or face a dismissal. Judges would also have to assure that plaintiffs receive 80 percent of their recovery, presumably restricting lawyers’ contingency fees to only 20 percent. This percentage is well below the statutory mandates for personal injury actions.
Class actions and MDLs are essential tools for consumers, employees, and other individuals who wish to level the playing field against corporate wrongdoing. They provide collected individuals with an interest to stand up to corporate negligence when individual litigation is unrealistic.
We are fighting back at Harford, P.C., by contacting local elected constituents and working with trial advocacy groups locally and nationally. We urge everyone to do the same.
Please visit www.congress.gov to locate and to e34wwrite a letter or e-mail to your representative. We must fight back against big business and their lobby’s anti-class action talking points.
