Zoe Lofgren: “I have heard the comments that the provision in the bill is fine because it is diversity jurisdiction, and I just do not…”

“I have heard the comments that the provision in the bill is fine because it is diversity jurisdiction, and I just do not buy that argument. I will tell my colleagues why. Take a look at the provision that creates sort of class action coverage for the actions of district attorneys, our local prosecutors. It specifically exempts State attorneys general. So the argument my colleagues are making that these cases need to be brought and heard in Federal court when there is diversity of any sort at all does not wash if we are exempting the State attorneys general from the provisions of these consumer protection actions. I called yesterday, I was ill last week and I wish I had called him before yesterday, but I called the district attorney in Santa Clara County. He was stunned to see this provision and adamantly opposes it. He put me in touch with the California State Attorneys General Association. They could not believe that this provision would be proposed; and they were absolutely amazed that it would seriously be considered, that their divisions that act in behalf of the people would essentially be shut down because they could never comply with rule 23. Please, support this amendment and cure this serious problem in the bill.”