Blake Farenthold: “Again, we get back to the argument, as you start to exempt certain groups or certain types of lawsuits, it creates the…”

“Again, we get back to the argument, as you start to exempt certain groups or certain types of lawsuits, it creates the same situation we have now that we are trying to fix in that class where those mostly injured get the most compensation and those only marginally injured are compensated accordingly. I think part of where the other side has a little misunderstanding of the bill is I keep hearing the word ``exact.'' It is not the exact same injury. The bill requires that class members share the same scope of injury, which is intended to prevent certification of grossly overbroad class action lawsuits that include members with wildly varying injury. The dictionary and ordinary meaning of ``scope'' is the range of a relevant subject. Judges are certainly capable of determining relevant range of injuries that would make class members suitably typical of one another. I think this could happen in all cases and actually probably more so in these equal pay type of cases if the scope of the injury is being paid less. Again, I think common sense is going to dictate. As we have seen historically, the vast majority of the times our Federal Court systems get it right. There are few notable exceptions, but that is beyond the scope of this argument. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, this exception, to a great piece of legislation that is designed to make our class action system fair and make sure those who are the most injured are the most compensated.…”