October 27, 2015
This paper suggests procedural improvements to weed out dubious and fraudulent claims in the early stages of multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings to prevent them from becoming "lawsuit magnets." Read More
When multiple civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in several different federal district courts, those actions can sometimes be transferred to one district court for coordinated and consolidated management and pretrial proceedings under a single judge. Congress created the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Panel in 1968 to handle these types of cases. The purpose behind implementing MDLs was to streamline and manage large numbers of relatively complex, but factually similar, claims in a consistent manner. This would ideally reduce backlog in federal courts and reduce duplicative discovery, allowing the courts to administer mass claims in a more coherent fashion. Read More...
Unfortunately, the plaintiffs’ trial bar has found ways to game the mass tort litigation system and have devised ways to lump claims together so as to avoid federal jurisdiction. As a result, thousands of cases involving national controversies that should belong in federal court are being handled by a few “magnet” state courts—even though those courts have no relationship to the parties and have no business being involved. This often has the unfortunate effect of dragging innocent small businesses, unlucky enough to be located in a trial lawyer-friendly jurisdiction, into burdensome and expensive litigation.
Furthermore, even if a case is able to be heard in a federal mass tort MDL proceeding, some plaintiffs’ counsel file thousands of advertising-generated claims without properly investigating those claims’ legitimacy. This goes on unimpeded because MDL courts often limit the ability of defendants to scrutinize individual claims within an MDL. As a result, MDL proceedings are often clogged with bogus claims, prejudicing both plaintiffs with legitimate claims and defendants. Additionally, MDL courts sometimes force “bellwether” trials, despite their mandate to only conduct pre-trial proceedings, and use the results of those trials to pressure settlements.
Even though the cases in mass tort MDL proceedings account for roughly 35% of all civil lawsuits pending in the federal court system nationwide, appeals from key rulings in those proceedings are rarely allowed.
The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (FICALA) will make a number of significant changes to the class action litigation system and also help address many of the significant abuses that turn MDLs into a mechanism of extracting strong-armed settlements from defendants, who are many times effectively deprived of their day in court.
The significant changes to the current state of the mass tort MDL system that FICALA makes include:
FICALA would put MDLs back on the right track towards being a means of making the management of federal civil cases more efficient, rather than a tool used by trial attorneys to extract massive, pressured settlements from defendants.
This special double-issue of the ILR Research Review features a wealth of insight and analysis on the world's rapidly changing litigation environment. The research contained in this issue targets exploitative litigation at home and abroad, examining numerous developments ranging from hyper-aggressive trial lawyer advertising in the U.S. to the imminent expansion of class actions in Europe. Read More
Unbeaten At Trial, Bayer and Janssen Say Cycle Of Xarelto Lawsuits 'Needs To Be Stopped'; Florida Contractor Arrested for Involvement in $140K Assignment of Benefits Scheme... Read More
Drug Companies Challenge Locality Legal Theories in Opioid MDL... Read More
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court was a clear statement that the days of blatant, unchecked plaintiff forum shopping in search of outsized verdicts are at an end. ILR's research explores this paradigm shift and provides practical advice for defendants litigating BMS in the trenches.... Read More
NFL Attorneys Ask Judge to Investigate Fraud; California Court to Review Class Certification in Illinois Biometric Data Lawsuit... Read More
The wave of six new opioid-related state lawsuits demonstrate the emerging differences in how state governments choose to litigate mass action cases, Legal Newsline reports in Forbes.... Read More
NCAA Settlement Class Member Fighting High Attorneys' Fees; Sirius XM Says 'Same Lawyers' are Bringing 'Same Suit,' Ask Judge to Dismiss TCPA Class Action... Read More
U.S. District Judge Anita Brody scheduled a hearing for May 30 to hear more about the "widespread fraud" that the National Football League (NFL) has alleged is taking place in the concussion settlement, Reuters reports.... Read More
If two's a coincidence and three's a trend, what would you call six headlines in one week?... Read More
The U.S. District Judge overseeing the multidistrict opioid litigation ordered all contingency fee attorneys to disclose to the court any third party litigation funding agreements, National Law Journal reports.... Read More