ACS Panel Asks "Is Federal Legislation Closing the Courthouse Door?"
On June 16, ACS hosted a panel at the 2006 National Convention which considered whether new federal laws are preventing plaintiffs from asserting their rights in court.
Much of the panel's discussion focused on the recently enacted Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which permits many class action defendants to remove their cases to federal court. Panelist Victor Schwartz, who supported CAFA, suggested that the law was enacted to end a "plague of litigation tourism," where plaintiffs would seek out favorable jurisdiction, but panelist Elizabeth Cabraser disagreed, suggesting its true purpose was to limit the availability of class remedies.
According to Cabraser, "There's nothing wrong with federal courts," except for the fact that "there aren't enough of them." Cabraser argued that, by funnelling a large number of suits from "a very large, diffuse system" of state courts into a relatively smaller federal system, CAFA creates a "bottleneck," which prevents plaintiffs from receiving a hearing.
Paul Bland of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice argued that CAFA's purpose was more sinister. "The Chamber of Commerce and their clients thought they could win more cases in federal court than they thought they could win in state court." Bland cites several reasons why federal courts might be more sympathetic to defendants than state courts, including the judge's backgrounds, state courts' reluctance to throw out a state consumer-protection law on preemption grounds, and federal courts' tendancy to favor arbitration.
Streaming video of the panel is available here. Panelists included:
- Alan Morrison, Senior Lecturer, Stanford Law School; Co-Founder, Public Citizen Litigation Group
- Elizabeth Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
- Paul Bland, Staff Attorney, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
- Margaret Russell, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law
- Victor Schwartz, Shook Hardy & Bacon