I
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 967
To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for Federal jurisdiction
of certain multiparty, multiforum civil actions.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 3, 1999
Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself and Mr. COBLE) introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for Fed-
eral jurisdiction of certain multiparty, multiforum civil
actions.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Multiparty,
Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999’’.
SEC. 2. MULTIPARTY, MULTIFORUM JURISDICTION OF DIS-
TRICT COURTS.
(a) BASIS OF JURISDICTION.—
HR 967 IH
‘‘(c) INTERVENING PARTIES.—In any action in a dis-
trict court which is or could have been brought, in whole
or in part, under this section, any person with a claim
arising from the accident described in subsection (a) shall
be permitted to intervene as a party plaintiff in the action,
even if that person could not have brought an action in
a district court as an original matter.
‘‘(d) NOTIFICATION OF JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTI-
DISTRICT LITIGATION.—A district court in which an ac-
tion under this section is pending shall promptly notify
the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation of the pend-
ency of the action.’’.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:
‘‘1369. Multiparty, multiforum jurisdiction.’’.
(b) VENUE.—Section 1391 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(g) A civil action in which jurisdiction of the district
court is based upon section 1369 of this title may be
brought in any district in which any defendant resides or
in which a substantial part of the accident giving rise to
the action took place.’’.
HR 967 IH
(c) MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.—Section 1407 of
title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
‘‘(i)(1) In actions transferred under this section when
jurisdiction is or could have been based, in whole or in
part, on section 1369 of this title, the transferee district
court may, notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, retain actions so transferred for the determination
of liability and punitive damages. An action retained for
the determination of liability shall be remanded to the dis-
trict court from which the action was transferred, or to
the State court from which the action was removed, for
the determination of damages, other than punitive dam-
ages, unless the court finds, for the convenience of parties
and witnesses and in the interest of justice, that the action
should be retained for the determination of damages.
‘‘(2) Any remand under paragraph (1) shall not be
effective until 60 days after the transferee court has
issued an order determining liability and has certified its
intention to remand some or all of the transferred actions
for the determination of damages. An appeal with respect
to the liability determination and the choice of law deter-
mination of the transferee court may be taken during that
60-day period to the court of appeals with appellate juris-
diction over the transferee court. In the event a party files
HR 967 IH
such an appeal, the remand shall not be effective until the
appeal has been finally disposed of. Once the remand has
become effective, the liability determination and the choice
of law determination shall not be subject to further review
by appeal or otherwise.
‘‘(3) An appeal with respect to determination of puni-
tive damages by the transferee court may be taken, during
the 60-day period beginning on the date the order making
the determination is issued, to the court of appeals with
jurisdiction over the transferee court.
‘‘(4) Any decision under this subsection concerning
remand for the determination of damages shall not be re-
viewable by appeal or otherwise.
‘‘(5) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the au-
thority of the transferee court to transfer or dismiss an
action on the ground of inconvenient forum.’’.
(d) REMOVAL OF ACTIONS.—Section 1441 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (e) by striking ‘‘(e) The court
to which such civil action is removed’’ and inserting
‘‘(f) The court to which a civil action is removed
under this section’’; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the follow-
ing new subsection:
HR 967 IH
‘‘(e)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
(b) of this section, a defendant in a civil action in a State
court may remove the action to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the
place where the action is pending if—
‘‘(A) the action could have been brought in a
United States district court under section 1369 of
this title, or
‘‘(B) the defendant is a party to an action
which is or could have been brought, in whole or in
part, under section 1369 in a United States district
court and arises from the same accident as the ac-
tion in State court, even if the action to be removed
could not have been brought in a district court as
an original matter.
The removal of an action under this subsection shall be
made in accordance with section 1446 of this title, except
that a notice of removal may also be filed before trial of
the action in State court within 30 days after the date
on which the defendant first becomes a party to an action
under section 1369 in a United States district court that
arises from the same accident as the action in State court,
or at a later time with leave of the district court.
‘‘(2) Whenever an action is removed under this sub-
section and the district court to which it is removed or
HR 967 IH
transferred under section 1407(i) has made a liability de-
termination requiring further proceedings as to damages,
the district court shall remand the action to the State
court from which it had been removed for the determina-
tion of damages, unless the court finds that, for the con-
venience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of
justice, the action should be retained for the determination
of damages.
‘‘(3) Any remand under paragraph (2) shall not be
effective until 60 days after the district court has issued
an order determining liability and has certified its inten-
tion to remand the removed action for the determination
of damages. An appeal with respect to the liability deter-
mination and the choice of law determination of the dis-
trict court may be taken during that 60-day period to the
court of appeals with appellate jurisdiction over the dis-
trict court. In the event a party files such an appeal, the
remand shall not be effective until the appeal has been
finally disposed of. Once the remand has become effective,
the liability determination and the choice of law deter-
mination shall not be subject to further review by appeal
or otherwise.
‘‘(4) Any decision under this subsection concerning
remand for the determination of damages shall not be re-
viewable by appeal or otherwise.
HR 967 IH
‘‘(5) An action removed under this subsection shall
be deemed to be an action under section 1369 and an ac-
tion in which jurisdiction is based on section 1368 of this
title for purposes of this section and sections 1407, 1660,
1697, and 1785 of this title.
‘‘(6) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the au-
thority of the district court to transfer or dismiss an ac-
tion on the ground of inconvenient forum.’’.
(e) CHOICE OF LAW.—
(1) DETERMINATION BY THE COURT.—Chapter
111 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 1660. Choice of law in multiparty, multiforum ac-
tions
‘‘(a) FACTORS.—In an action which is or could have
been brought, in whole or in part, under section 1369 of
this title, the district court in which the action is brought
or to which it is removed shall determine the source of
the applicable substantive law, except that if an action is
transferred to another district court, the transferee court
shall determine the source of the applicable substantive
law. In making this determination, a district court shall
not be bound by the choice of law rules of any State, and
the factors that the court may consider in choosing the
applicable law include—