About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

61 Food & Drug L.J. 561 (2006)
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: Changing the Class Action Landscape Circuit by Circuit

handle is hein.journals/foodlj61 and id is 585 raw text is: The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: Changing the Class Action Landscape Circuit by Circuit ASHISH R. TALATI, J.D., M.S., RAC* I. INTRODUCTION The pharmaceutical industry has had more than its share of major class action suits over the past decade. Consumers have received compensation through class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for a range of alleged unsafe practices. In 2002, for example, Aventis, BASF, Daiichi Pharmaceutical, Roche, and Takeda Chemical Industries agreed to pay $19.6 million to settle price-fixing claims brought in a class action suit in a Massachusetts state court. A class action lawsuit against American Home Products (now Wyeth) was settled when the company agreed to provide medical monitoring to millions of consumers who had used its anti-obesity drug, Redux. The pharmaceutical industry lobbied Congress for years to pass some sort of tort reform. Its prayers were answered with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). CAFA will make it difficult, the industry reasoned, for plaintiffs to get their class actions certified in federal courts, due to the prohibitive cost associated with federal suits, and, of course, the tendency of federal judges to apply state laws conservatively would act as a deterrent for plaintiffs ever so eager to file class actions in notoriously plaintiff friendly venues like Madison County, Illinois. Since the passage of CAFA, seasoned class action practioners have had more than 18 months to understand and comprehend it. CAFA has undoubtly made fuidamental changes to the class action landscape and gradually its impact is becoming clear through various court decisions. CAFA is only in its second year, and hence it will take a few more years before plaintiffs and defendants fine-tune their strategies. This article reviews some of the prominent court decisions interpreting CAFA. 1I. T-i CLASS ACTION FAIRNEss ACT On February 18, 2005, President Bush signed CAFA into law.1 CAFA's key provi- sions expand federal court jurisdiction over class actions involving interstate commerce and mandates judicial review of class action settlements involving the issuance of coupons. In enacting CAFA, Congress sought to address abuses in class action cases. According to the Findings and Purposes section of CAFA, abuses in class actions undermine the national judicial system, the free flow of interstate commerce, and the concept of diversity jurisdiction as intended by the framers of the United States Con- stitution, in that state and local courts are: a) keeping cases of national importance out of federal court; b) sometimes acting in ways that demonstrate bias against out-of-state defendants; and c) making judgments that impose their view of the law on other states and bind the rights of the residents of those states.' Mr. Talati is an Associate at Amin Law, Chicago, IL where he practices Food and Drug law. Pub. L. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005). 2 Pub. L. 109-2, § 2.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most