Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know enough about the bill, 'cuz I haven't been paying attention, but it will permit removal of cases that are now in state court to federal court. Do you not see the states-right problem there? Is that how superficial the conservative commitment to states rights was?
As for this bit about affecting people in other jurisdiction, a state court can't take a case right now unless it has jurisdiction over the parties. And it can't adjudicate a class action involving parties elsewhere unless it meets various standards relating to things like the state's interest.
And you talk about "affecting people" in other jurisdictions as if it's a bad thing. Suppose I live in California, and I buy insurance from a company in Virginia, and they defraud me. Shouldn't I get to sue them in California?
Now suppose I live in California, and I buy stock in a Virgina company, which fudges its books and goes bankrupt. It turns out that the auditors knew this was happening, and said nothing, and under Virginia law they have a duty to stockholders like me to prepare the books properly. Don't we want Virginia courts to be able to "affect" me by protecting my rights?
|
I think the new law is something like if less than a third of the plaintiffs are state residents AND they are claiming more than $5MM in damages, it goes to federal court. This seems reasonable to me, though I'm not prepared to debate its constitutionality. I think the more interesting issue is the one that limits attys fees when the recovery is discount, coupons for future purchases, and the like. We all know that was being abused by our brethren on the plaintiffs side. However, I think some defendants will in the future wish that the option of discounts and coupons were still available to them to settle cases.
