Bloomberg Law’s combination of innovative analytics, research tools and practical guidance provides you with everything you need to be a successful litigator.
Sept. 14 — Advocates for expanded federal court access to combat the perceived problem of plaintiffs filing cases in friendly forums confront the realities of an understaffed federal judiciary during a House hearing.
The Sept. 13 hearing explored whether the principles behind the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act should apply more broadly to expand the definition of diversity jurisdiction, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said in a statement.
Federal courts may hear purely state-law cases when there is complete diversity. Complete diversity exists when no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
CAFA relaxed that standard for class actions, replacing it with a minimal standard requiring at least one diverse plaintiff and defendant.
Plaintiffs have used the requirement for complete diversity jurisdiction “to close the federal courts to the very types of interstate disputes for which the founders intended to provide a neutral federal forum,” witness Charles J. Cooper said.
But Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) saw the stakes differently.
Repealing the long-standing requirement of complete diversity for suits other than class actions “represents the latest attempt by corporate interests to deny state court plaintiffs access to justice,” he said in a statement.
The Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act, H.R. 3624, would make it more difficult for plaintiffs who add in-state defendants to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction, but it has stalled in the Senate after passing the House in February (84 U.S.L.W. 1123, 2/11/16).
Cooper argued for a minimal diversity standard and said “the statutory requirement of complete diversity of citizenship is not one that the First Congress truly intended to impose on federal jurisdiction in the first place.”
Cooper is chairman of Cooper & Kirk PLLC, Washington, a boutique trial and appellate law firm whose website says it has “successfully defended the vital business interests of our corporate clients and the sovereign rights of our state and local governmental clients.”
CAFA “significantly relaxed” the diversity requirements in class actions and “amended the diversity statute to extend original federal jurisdiction over certain large class actions,” Cooper said.
Federal jurisdiction should be available for other cases, such as mass torts, where plaintiffs' attorneys “abuse” diversity jurisdiction by forum shopping for state courts that are friendly to them, he said.
“Large interstate disputes with large interstate concerns” should be able to be removed to federal court to “frustrate” this kind of forum selection, Cooper said.
Not all of the witnesses agreed that CAFA had been positive for the court system.
Many “believe that the law has proved to be overbroad, resulting in a federal forum for cases that state courts would be perfectly well-equipped to handle,” Weich said.
Expanding diversity jurisdiction will increase the cost and complexity of civil litigation for a system that is already overburdened, he said.
Another legal scholar was more pessimistic about state courts' ability to handle cases.
The founders envisioned a system where out-of-state residents could take their cases to federal court to avoid “potentially biased state courts,” Shepherd said.
“A substantial body of empirical research shows that state judicial elections influence judges to decide cases in ways that will get them reelected, by conforming to voter preferences, altering voting patterns and favoring campaign contributors in their decisions,” Shepherd, an economist, said.
Addressing the issue of state-court bias, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) talked about his time as a prosecutor.
“I’ve worked as a prosecutor in federal and state courts; I’ve been a state court judge. I found a tremendous amount of bias in federal courts,” he said.
According to a data compilation and coding study Shepherd conducted, 557,791 cases total would be removable under a minimal diversity standard.
The actual cases that would be removed, however, would increase the federal court system caseload by 7.7 percent, “a relatively small burden on the federal courts,” she said.
We “can only assume” these numbers because we don’t yet have minimal diversity, Weich said.
“It’s a large increase for an already overstressed court system,” Weich said.
What effect would the elimination of complete diversity have on litigants, Conyers asked Weich.
It would increase the costs of filing, which is traditionally cheaper in state court, and litigation would become more inconvenient, Weich said.
Expanding federal jurisdiction by relaxing diversity requirements would be “unwise,” he said.
Rep. Steven Cohen (D-Tenn.) voiced concerns similar to Weich.
The minimal diversity plan would increase the workload of the federal judiciary, which is overworked and understaffed, Cohen said.
“We don’t have enough judges as it is,” Cohen said.
To help deal with the added caseload, existing judicial vacancies could be filled and the number of judgeships could be increased, Shepherd said.
The Senate has failed and disregarded its duty to timely confirm judges, Cohen said.
“Edward Stanton III has been waiting 11 months for confirmation,” Cohen said.
“I’m deeply disappointed we’re wasting the limited time we have on this hearing,” he said.
We should work on restoring voting rights, criminal reform and getting funding to fight the Zika virus, Cohen said.
“This subcommittee has so much to do and shouldn’t waste time” on this, he said.
The hearing, held by the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, was called “Exploring Federal Diversity Jurisdiction.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Melissa Heelan Stanzione in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jessie Kokrda Kamens at email@example.com
More information at https://judiciary.house.gov/hearing/exploring-federal-diversity-jurisdiction/.
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)