Dianne Feinstein: “what I would like to do is say a few words on behalf of this amendment which is submitted on behalf of both Senator…”

“what I would like to do is say a few words on behalf of this amendment which is submitted on behalf of both Senator Bingaman, who will be on the floor shortly to speak on it, and myself. As the legislation has been debated, Senator Bingaman has raised, I think, a reasonable, valid, and a real concern about whether certain national class action cases may be caught in a catch-22 when they were prohibited from having their cases heard either in State or Federal court, leaving the case to reside in oblivion. This problem was best described by the Bruce Bromley Harvard Law Professor Arthur Miller in a letter he sent to Senator Bingaman. It is a lengthy letter, but I will read one part: Under current doctrines, federal courts hearing state law- based claims, must use the ``choice-of-law'' rule of the State in which the federal district court sits. These procedural rules vary among states, but many provide that the federal court should apply the substantive law of a home state of a plaintiff, or the law of the state where the harm occurred. In a nationwide consumer class action, such a rule would lead the court to apply to each class member's claim the law of the state in which the class member lives or lived at the time the harm occurred. As noted, most federal courts will not grant class certification in these situations because they find the cases would be ``unmanageable.'' That is the catch-22.…”