H.R. 1768, The Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2004
This bill passed the House by a vote of 418 - 0 and is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation is responsive to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which held that statutory authority did not exist for a transferee judge, conducting pretrial proceedings, to transfer a case to his or her own district for a trial. H.R.1768 would amend the statute to allow a judge with a transferred case to retain it for trial or to transfer it to another district.

The Judicial Conference of the United States communicated its strong support for this legislation to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Conference said, “As experience has shown, there is wisdom in permitting the judge who is familiar with the facts, and parties, and pretrial proceedings of a transferred case to retain the case for trial. Also, as with most federal civil actions, multidistrict litigation cases are typically resolved through settlement. Allowing the transferee judge to set a firm trial date promotes the resolution of these cases.”

The bill would provide that any action transferred for trial must be remanded by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the district court from which it was transferred for the determination of compensatory damages, unless the transferee court finds for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as, in the interest of justice that the action should be retained for the determination of compensatory damages.

H.R. 1768 would also make technical corrections to the Multiparty Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002.

ABI Legislative Committee Co-chairs:
Judge David W. Houston III
United States Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of Mississippi

Judge George C. Paine
United States Bankruptcy Court
Middle District of Tennessee