WASHINGTON, D.C. — Legal professionals specializing in class action lawsuits are rallying for significant amendments to a proposed regulation concerning multidistrict litigation (MDL). They argue that the draft rule, designed to streamline early-stage litigation for cases consolidated from different jurisdictions, does not adequately distinguish between mass torts and class actions. These litigators claim the rule could disrupt long-established best practices for managing class-related MDLs.
The proposed changes, which underwent scrutiny by the judiciary’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules earlier this year, aim primarily to aid judges new to MDL responsibilities. By pushing lawyers to agree on a litigation plan sooner, the rule hopes to foster efficiency in handling complex cases which represent about 70% of the federal docket as of May 2023.
Class action attorneys are particularly concerned that these proposed changes would complicate the initial stages of class action MDLs, which typically begin with the appointment of class counsel. This process contrasts with mass tort MDLs where multiple, individual suits remain distinct even after consolidation — a point of contention for those worried about the practical implications of the draft rule.
Multidistrict litigation involving class action claims makes up a substantial portion of the federal courts’ workload, implicating major cases such as those accusing airlines of price-fixing. “The rule as it stands seems to misunderstand the unique nature and needs of class action MDLs compared to mass tort MDLs,” stated Jeannine Kenney, a partner at the law firm Hausfeld.
The rule in question has stirred debate over its one-size-fits-all approach. Experts like Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, a University of Georgia School of Law professor, argue that the distinction between mass torts and class actions isn’t just bureaucratic but fundamental to how these cases should be managed. Class actions demand commonality among plaintiffs’ grievances that is less stringent in mass tort cases.
Supporters of the draft rule believe it will offer necessary guidance for new MDL judges, providing a uniform standard for preliminary case management. Alex Dahl, general counsel to Lawyers for Civil Justice, suggests that the rule can address problems seen in recent MDLs where courts and parties struggled with organizational uncertainties. “The rule introduces a framework to clarify early-stage management,” Dahl noted.
Critics, however, maintain that the advanced planning required under the new rule could lead to delays and added complications. Negotiating a unified legal strategy amongst potentially dozens of attorneys across the country without first establishing lead counsel might slow proceedings, running counter to the rule’s intention of streamlining the process.
The proposal, if passed by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in June, could be implemented as early as December 2025 after further approval from the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court.
As the legal community awaits the decision, class action attorneys emphasize the need for a bespoke approach to MDL regulations that respects the distinct mechanics and objectives of their cases. The outcome of the June meeting could have lasting impacts on the handling of some of the nation’s most significant and complex legal battles.