IB
Union Calendar No. 165
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2112
[Report No. 106–276]
To amend title 28, United States Code, to allow a judge to whom a case
is transferred to retain jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation
cases for trial, and to provide for Federal jurisdiction of certain
multiparty, multiforum civil actions.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 9, 1999
Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. HYDE, and Mr. COBLE) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JULY 30, 1999
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on June 9, 1999]
A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, to allow a judge
to whom a case is transferred to retain jurisdiction over
certain multidistrict litigation cases for trial, and to pro-
vide for Federal 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 ‘‘Multidistrict,
Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999’’.
SEC. 2. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.
Section 1407 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended—
(1) in the third sentence of subsection (a), by in-
serting ‘‘or ordered transferred to the transferee or
other district under subsection (i)’’ after ‘‘termi-
nated’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub-
section:
‘‘(i)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and except as pro-
vided in subsection (j), any action transferred under this
section by the panel may be transferred for trial purposes,
by the judge or judges of the transferee district to whom
the action was assigned, to the transferee or other district
in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the par-
ties and witnesses.
‘‘(2) Any action transferred for trial purposes under
paragraph (1) shall be remanded by the panel for the deter-
mination of compensatory damages to the district court
from which it was transferred, unless the court to which
the action has been transferred for trial purposes also finds,
for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the
interests of justice, that the action should be retained for
the determination of compensatory damages.’’.
SEC. 3. MULTIPARTY, MULTIFORUM JURISDICTION OF DIS-
TRICT COURTS.
(a) BASIS OF JURISDICTION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 85 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing new section:
‘‘§ 1369. Multiparty, multiforum jurisdiction
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of any civil action involving minimal
diversity between adverse parties that arises from a single
accident, where at least 25 natural persons have either died
or incurred injury in the accident at a discrete location
and, in the case of injury, the injury has resulted in dam-
ages which exceed $75,000 per person, exclusive of interest
and costs, if—
‘‘(1) a defendant resides in a State and a sub-
stantial part of the accident took place in another
State or other location, regardless of whether that de-
fendant is also a resident of the State where a sub-
stantial part of the accident took place;
‘‘(2) any two defendants reside in different
States, regardless of whether such defendants are also
residents of the same State or States; or
‘‘(3) substantial parts of the accident took place
in different States.
‘‘(b) SPECIAL RULES AND DEFINITIONS.—For pur-
poses of this section—
‘‘(1) minimal diversity exists between adverse
parties if any party is a citizen of a State and any
adverse party is a citizen of another State, a citizen
or subject of a foreign state, or a foreign state as de-
fined in section 1603(a) of this title;
‘‘(2) a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of
any State, and a citizen or subject of any foreign
state, in which it is incorporated or has its principal
place of business, and is deemed to be a resident of
any State in which it is incorporated or licensed to
do business or is doing business;
‘‘(3) the term ‘injury’ means—
‘‘(A) physical harm to a natural person;
and
‘‘(B) physical damage to or destruction of
tangible property, but only if physical harm de-
scribed in subparagraph (A) exists;
‘‘(4) the term ‘accident’ means a sudden acci-
dent, or a natural event culminating in an accident,
that results in death or injury incurred at a discrete
location by at least 25 natural persons; and
‘‘(5) the term ‘State’ includes the District of Co-
lumbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any
territory or possession of the United States.
‘‘(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 aris-
ing 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 MULTIDIS-
TRICT LITIGATION.—A district court in which an action
under this section is pending shall promptly notify the judi-
cial panel on multidistrict litigation of the pendency of the
action.’’.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec-
tions 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.’’.
(c) MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.—Section 1407 of title
28, United States Code, as amended by section 2 of this
Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(j)(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 liabil-
ity and punitive damages. An action retained for the deter-
mination of liability shall be remanded to the district 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 damages, 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 inten-
tion 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 determina-
tion of the transferee court may be taken during that 60-
day period to the court of appeals with appellate jurisdic-
tion over the transferee 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
determination shall not be subject to further review by ap-
peal 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 re-
mand for the determination of damages shall not be review-
able by appeal or otherwise.
‘‘(5) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the au-
thority of the transferee court to transfer or dismiss an ac-
tion 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 following
new subsection:
‘‘(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 action 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
transferred under section 1407(j) has made a liability deter-
mination 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 determination of
damages, unless the court finds that, for the convenience of
parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, the ac-
tion 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 district
court may be taken during that 60-day period to the court
of appeals with appellate jurisdiction over the district
court. In the event a party files such an appeal, the remand
shall not be effective until the appeal has been finally dis-
posed 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.
‘‘(4) Any decision under this subsection concerning re-
mand for the determination of damages shall not be review-
able by appeal or otherwise.
‘‘(5) An action removed under this subsection shall be
deemed to be an action under section 1369 and an action
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 action
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 trans-
ferred 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 fac-
tors that the court may consider in choosing the applicable
law include—
‘‘(1) the place of the injury;
‘‘(2) the place of the conduct causing the injury;
‘‘(3) the principal places of business or domiciles
of the parties;
‘‘(4) the danger of creating unnecessary incen-
tives for forum shopping; and
‘‘(5) whether the choice of law would be reason-
ably foreseeable to the parties.
The factors set forth in paragraphs (1) through (5) shall
be evaluated according to their relative importance with re-
spect to the particular action. If good cause is shown in
exceptional cases, including constitutional reasons, the
court may allow the law of more than one State to be ap-
plied with respect to a party, claim, or other element of
an action.
‘‘(b) ORDER DESIGNATING CHOICE OF LAW.—The dis-
trict court making the determination under subsection (a)
shall enter an order designating the single jurisdiction
whose substantive law is to be applied in all other actions
under section 1369 arising from the same accident as that
giving rise to the action in which the determination is
made. The substantive law of the designated jurisdiction
shall be applied to the parties and claims in all such actions
before the court, and to all other elements of each action,
except where Federal law applies or the order specifically
provides for the application of the law of another jurisdic-
tion with respect to a party, claim, or other element of an
action.
‘‘(c) CONTINUATION OF CHOICE OF LAW AFTER RE-
MAND.—In an action remanded to another district court
or a State court under section 1407(j)(1) or 1441(e)(2) of
this title, the district court’s choice of law under subsection
(b) shall continue to apply.’’.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec-
tions at the beginning of chapter 111 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
‘‘1660. Choice of law in multiparty, multiforum actions.’’.
(f) SERVICE OF PROCESS.—
(1) OTHER THAN SUBPOENAS.—(A) Chapter 113
of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 1697. Service in multiparty, multiforum actions
‘‘When the jurisdiction of the district court is based
in whole or in part upon section 1369 of this title, process,
other than subpoenas, may be served at any place within
the United States, or anywhere outside the United States
if otherwise permitted by law.’’.