Mass Tort Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Proceedings

  • Home >
  • Issues >
  • Mass Tort Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Proceedings

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:

  • Help fix the magnet state court problem by requiring courts to determine jurisdiction on an individual case basis in a MDL. This will help prevent lawyers from lumping together unrelated personal injury claims in multiple-plaintiff lawsuits solely to avoid federal jurisdiction.
  • Ensuring that MDL courts only conduct trials when all parties agree to such, putting an end to the use of “bellwether” trials, which are often forced upon plaintiffs and defendants to pressure them to settle.
  • Requiring that claimants (the allegedly injured parties) get 80% of any settlement payments, notwithstanding any fee demands by their lawyers. All too often under the current system, trial lawyers walk away with more than their clients.
  • Requiring federal appellate courts to hear appeals from orders issued in MDL proceedings where immediate review may materially advance the ultimate termination of the case.

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.

Suggested Resources

  • MDL Proceedings: Eliminating the Chaff

    MDL Proceedings: Eliminating the Chaff

    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

  • ILR Research Review - Fall 2017

    ILR Research Review - Fall 2017

    November 30, 2017

    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

All Results for Mass Tort Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Proceedings

  1. Georgetown Law Professor Says Lanier's Payment Deception a "Very Serious Violation"

    May 07, 2018 | News

    A Georgetown University Law Center professor said plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Lanier committed a "very serious violation" of legal ethics when he misleadingly told a jury his expert witnesses were unpaid, Law360 reports.... Read More

  2. Texas State Senator Will Profit Off County He Represents for Legal Work With Major Mass Tort Lawyer

    May 03, 2018 | News

    Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa stands to profit off a county he represents in the state senate for the legal work he's doing with major plaintiffs' lawyer Mikal Watts in a multi-million dollar opioid lawsuit, the Southeast Texas Record reports.... Read More

  3. "Hip Suit Needs Lawyer Replacement"

    April 30, 2018 | News

    Plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Lanier was "slapped down for distortions in court" after a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judge said his "obvious, egregious and impactful" actions distorted the jury, said the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.... Read More

  4. Lanier's "Deceptions" Led to New Trial

    April 27, 2018 | News

    "Unequivocally deceptive" payments to two key expert witnesses by plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Lanier were a key factor in the Fifth Circuit's decision to order a new hip implant trial, Law360 reports.... Read More

  5. 5th Circ.: "Deceptions" From Plaintiffs' Lawyer Led to Reversal of $151 Million Verdict

    April 26, 2018 | News

    As a result of "falsehoods" and "deceptions" from plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Lanier, the 5th Circuit tossed a $151 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson in hip implant litigation.... Read More

  6. In the News Today - April 20, 2018

    April 20, 2018 | News

    Self-Driving Cars, Thinking Machines Will Test Limits Of Tort Law; Texas Panel Told To Revive Asbestos Depo 'Coaching' Row... Read More

  7. In the News Today - March 28, 2018

    March 28, 2018 | News

    "Congress: Please protect us from frivolous lawsuits"; Justices approve individual appeals in combined cases... Read More

  8. "Ghost Lawyers" Controversy Causes Stir in VW Settlement

    February 26, 2018 | News

    As plaintiffs' lawyers jockey for fees, class members have objected to requests from "ghost lawyers" in the $10 billion Volkswagen settlement, Law360 reports.... Read More

  9. In the News Today - January 30, 2018

    January 30, 2018 | News

    Debate Continues About WV Intermediate Appeals Court; Orange Juice Decision Shows the True Silliness of Many Food Lawsuits; False Claims Act Teleforum on February 1... Read More

  10. In the News Today - January 29, 2018

    January 29, 2018 | News

    AbbVie Drug Did Not Cause Man's Blood Clots, Jury Finds; How the Finance Industry Is Trying to Cash In on #MeToo... Read More