Blake Farenthold: “I oppose this amendment for the same reason that I have opposed almost every amendment so far in that it exempts a…”

“I oppose this amendment for the same reason that I have opposed almost every amendment so far in that it exempts a certain class from the bill that is designed to help those who are most injured. First, the base bill only applies to classes that are seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss. Insofar as education-related cases do not seek monetary damages, they are completely unaffected by the bill and would proceed just as they do today. If money damages are being sought, 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 of artificially inflating the size of a class to extort a larger settlement. The other side is continually saying that these groups or classes must be exactly the same. The language is of the same scope. The bill is designed to keep from grossly inflating the size of a class. The students of the college that the gentlewoman is citing were all in the same class and would appear to be similarly injured. I cannot predict what a court would do. I believe, under this bill, even without the gentlewoman's amendment, they would continue to be certified as a class because the scope of their injuries would be the same. It is not designed to make it exact. It is the same scope. And that is where we are trying to go.…”