Class Action Reform

Problem

Today, some class actions are meritless cases in which thousands, or millions, of plaintiffs with unique injuries and grievances are granted class status, often without the knowledge of class members.  In many of these cases, plaintiffs’ counsel negotiate settlements with the defendants early on that allow the defendants to avoid costly litigation, and rewards the plaintiffs’ counsel with millions in legal fees.  Meanwhile, the class members, who play no role in the negotiation process, and who often have no idea that plaintiffs’ lawyers are advancing a lawsuit on their behalf, often receive pennies or nearly-worthless coupons. 

90% of members in class action settlements receive no benefits.

ATRA's Position:

ATRA supports state legislation that allows only plaintiffs from the forum state who have suffered the same injury with similar claims against similar defendants to be certified as a class. ATRA also supports legislation that allows the interlocutory (immediate) appeal of class action certification orders. 

Learn More:


Opposition Opinion:

The personal injury bar’s argument against meaningful class action certification standards — that flexible standards make the process more efficient by incorporating all like claims, and more fair by ensuring representation for plaintiffs with claims that would not otherwise be profitable for attorneys — fails to address the hardship imposed by abuse of the device on class members, (who receive pennies, while their lawyers receive millions), defendants, (who are often forced to settle unmeritorious lawsuits), and consumers, (who ultimately bear the burden of class actions through increased costs). 

The personal injury bar’s argument against the interlocutory appeal of class action certification orders — that such orders are appealable at the end of a case — fails to take into account the strong incentive that defendants have to settle an unmeritorious case once the class is certified in order to save unnecessary litigation costs.

Class Action Reform: H.B. 472 (2013)

Louisiana|2013

Provides that a class action cannot be maintained if the

[…]

Provides that a class action cannot be maintained if the court would be required to look at the merits of any individual class member’s claim to determine whether or not the individual would fall within the defined class.  Furthermore, at the hearing on the motion to certify a class action, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Class Action Venue Reform: H.B. 464 (2012)

Louisiana|2012

Provides that when two or more actions requesting the same

[…]

Provides that when two or more actions requesting the same certification of a class are filed in two or more Louisiana courts regarding the same transaction or occurrence at the same location, and such classes would encompass one or more of the same plaintiffs suing in the same capacities against the same defendants, the defendant may have all such actions transferred to the district court where the event occurred.  Provides that when two or more actions requesting certification of a class are filed in two or more Louisiana courts regarding multiple related transactions or occurrences in different locations, the defendant may have all such actions transferred to the district court where the first suit was brought.  Also, if within 30 days of certification of a class action, there are related putative class actions pending, they may be transferred to the court where the related action has been certified.  Defines domicile for venue purposes, with regards to a corporation or business, as either the state of formation or the state of its principal place of business, whichever is most pertinent to the particular issue.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Class Action Reform: HB 1984 (1997)

Louisiana|1997

Updates Louisiana class action laws by providing objective definitions of

[…]

Updates Louisiana class action laws by providing objective definitions of class action terms, and detailed procedures for class action cases.


[hide]

Unchallenged