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
The rising pace of private securities class actions could present a threat to the health of U.S. capital markets, while the ongoing wave of municipality lawsuits stands in the way of global settlements and undermines the authority of lawmakers and state attorneys general. White papers covered in this edition of the ILR Research Review detail the causes and current state of these litigation trends, along with a full suite of solutions to address them.... Read More
For the first time, multidistrict litigation makes up more than half of the federal civil caseload, according to a new Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) study profiled by Law360.... Read More
Future of Opioid Litigation May Be Bankruptcy... Read More
The 50-year-old multidistrict litigation (MDL) process is becoming increasingly unworkable and is in dire need of repair, writes Eli Lilly General Counsel Michael J. Harrington in Corporate Counsel.... Read More
Mark Lanier, the plaintiffs' lawyer leading the talcum powder litigation against Johnson & Johnson, admitted to CNBC that driving the company's stock price down helps him win settlements. ... Read More
Report: MDL Cases Have Tripled In Last 25 Years; SEC Enforcement Co-Director Says Year-End Stats Are "Counter-Productive"... Read More
FDA: Coffee Does Not Need California Warning Label; Bayer, Janssen Get Third Win in Xarelto-related Litigation... Read More
"Justice for Opioid Communities Means Massive Payday for Their Lawyers;" Only 16% of Plaintiffs In Philadelphia Pharma Lawsuits are From Pennsylvania... Read More
Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said the Oklahoma City Council "should consider calling a timeout" on its negotiations to opt out of the state's lawsuit against opioid manufacturers to file one of its own, The Oklahoman reports.... Read More
J&J Hit With $4.7 Billion Jury Verdict in Baby Powder Suit; "From Policy to Payday"... Read More