The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) moves class action lawsuits from state courts to federal courts for fairer trials. Cases exceeding $5 million and involving plaintiffs from different states are relegated to federal courts. Proponents argue that it dilutes bias and ensures consistent judgments, while opponents argue that state courts are more inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs and federal courts take longer to resolve cases.
The Class Action Fairness Act, also called CAFA, is a United States law that was enacted in 2005 to move many class action lawsuits from the jurisdiction of state courts to federal courts. Proponents of the law argued that cases would be fairer in federal courts, where cases could be tried according to a national standard rather than the mishmash of state courts. Opponents argued that the law would tilt the courts against plaintiffs, extending the period before victims could be compensated — federal courts have far more cases to handle than state courts — and placing cases in courts that may be less nice to the plaintiffs and nicer to the big business.
Under the Class Action Fairness Act, class action lawsuits exceeding a possible award of more than $5 million United States Dollars (USD) and involving plaintiffs who reside in states other than the defendants are relegated to federal courts. An example of a lawsuit that, under the law, would fall under federal jurisdiction could be an oil spill. Oil spills, like the 2010 BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, tend to affect plaintiffs from multiple states, and the amount of possible damages quickly exceeds $5 million dollars. As a result, such a case would easily fall under federal jurisdiction as mandated by the Class Action Fairness Act.
Proponents of the Class Action Fairness Act argue that it makes the law fairer. It ensures that defendants, faced with charges from plaintiffs in multiple states, cannot influence the case to be tried in a state court system that is biased against the defendant. By escalating cases nationally, the bias would be diluted and the defendants’ attorney could not choose federal courts the same way she could state courts. They also argue that cases would be judged more consistently, which would serve to make the rule of law fairer for all parties.
Opponents, however, object to such notions. State courts, they say, are generally more inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs, since the judges and juries of those courts reside in the same areas as the plaintiffs. They may be more inclined to understand the nature of plaintiffs’ suffering, and therefore be less inclined to bow under the influence of deep-pocketed defendants. Another argument against the Class Action Fairness Act is that even if the federal courts prove just as fair, it could be years before plaintiffs and defendants get their day in court. Federal courts are more backward and take longer to resolve cases. Thus, it may take years longer for deserving plaintiffs to receive compensation.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
