On the recordJanuary 8, 2016
I oppose this amendment. First, the base bill only applies to proposed classes ``seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss.'' Insofar as civil rights cases do not seek money damages, they are completely unaffected by the substitute and would proceed just as they do today. Indeed, Rule 23(b)(2) expressly provides for civil rights cases in which a class action can be certified when the defendant--and I am quoting the rule--``has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.'' Injunctive relief and declaratory relief, of course, are not claims for monetary relief. Now, if money damages are sought by a proposed class, then of course they should be subject to the procedures in this bill. The purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of evaluating like claims, not to provide a means for artificially inflating the size of a class to extort a larger settlement value. Exempting a subset of money damage cases from the bill, as this amendment would do, would serve only to incentivize the creation of artificially large classes to extort larger and unfair settlements for the purpose of disproportionately awarding uninjured plaintiffs. Any claims seeking monetary damages for personal injury or economic loss should be grouped in classes in which those who are most injured receive the most compensation.…
