IIB
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2112
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
AN ACT
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.
HR 2112 RFS
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
inserting ‘‘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
parties and witnesses.
‘‘(2) Any action transferred for trial purposes under
paragraph (1) shall be remanded by the panel for the de-
termination of compensatory damages to the district court
from which it was transferred, unless the court to which
HR 2112 RFS
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 re-
tained 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 following 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 loca-
tion and, in the case of injury, the injury has resulted in
damages which exceed $75,000 per person, exclusive of in-
terest 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
defendant is also a resident of the State where a
substantial part of the accident took place;
HR 2112 RFS
‘‘(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
defined 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;
HR 2112 RFS
‘‘(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
Columbia, 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
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:
HR 2112 RFS
‘‘(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 fol-
lowing:
‘‘(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 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
HR 2112 RFS
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
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—
HR 2112 RFS
(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 fol-
lowing 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 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
HR 2112 RFS
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 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,
HR 2112 RFS
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.
‘‘(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
HR 2112 RFS
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—
‘‘(1) the place of the injury;
‘‘(2) the place of the conduct causing the in-
jury;
‘‘(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
respect 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
district court making the determination under subsection
(a) shall enter an order designating the single jurisdiction
HR 2112 RFS
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 ac-
tions before the court, and to all other elements of each
action, except where Federal law applies or the order spe-
cifically provides for the application of the law of another
jurisdiction with respect to a party, claim, or other ele-
ment 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 sub-
section (b) shall continue to apply.’’.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of
sections 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:
HR 2112 RFS
‘‘§ 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.’’.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 113 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
‘‘1697. Service in multiparty, multiforum actions.’’.
(2) SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS.—(A) Chapter 117
of title 28, United States Code, is amended by add-
ing at the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 1785. Subpoenas in multiparty, multiforum actions
‘‘When the jurisdiction of the district court is based
in whole or in part upon section 1369 of this title, a sub-
poena for attendance at a hearing or trial may, if author-
ized by the court upon motion for good cause shown, and
upon such terms and conditions as the court may impose,
be served at any place within the United States, or any-
where outside the United States if otherwise permitted by
law.’’.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 117 of title 28, United States Code, is
HR 2112 RFS
amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
‘‘1785. Subpoenas in multiparty, multiforum actions.’’.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) SECTION 2.—The amendments made by section
2 shall apply to any civil action pending on or brought
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) SECTION 3.—The amendments made by section
3 shall apply to a civil action if the accident giving rise
to the cause of action occurred on or after the 90th day
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Passed the House of Representatives September 13,
1999.
Attest:
JEFF TRANDAHL,
Clerk.