Legislation called the "Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act" or LARA from the 109th Congress would have made changes in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; make an amended Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to cases filed in state courts if such cases affect interstate commerce; and made changes relating to jurisdiction and venue for personal injury cases filed in state and federal courts. In 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072-74, Congress prescribed the appropriate procedure for the formulation and adoption of rules of evidence, practice and procedure for the federal courts. This well-settled, congressionally specified procedure contemplates that evidentiary and procedural rules will in the first instance be considered and drafted by committees of the United States Judicial Conference, will thereafter be subject to thorough public comment and reconsideration, will then be submitted to the United States Supreme Court for consideration and promulgation, and will finally be transmitted to Congress, which retains the ultimate power to veto any rule before it takes effect.

H.R. 420 (LARA) passed the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. No legislation similar to H.R. 420 was introduced in the Senate, but the House bill was referred to the Senate. H.R. 420 died at the end of the 109th Congress. The bill passed the House of Representatives on October 27, 2005 by a vote of 228-184 (PDF). The ABA sent a letter (PDF) to all members of the House of Representatives opposing H.R. 420. The legislation has not yet been reintroduced in the 110th Congress.

• In 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072-74, Congress prescribed the appropriate procedure for the formulation and adoption of rules of evidence, practice and procedure for the federal courts. This well-settled, congressionally specified procedure contemplates that evidentiary and procedural rules will in the first instance be considered and drafted by committees of the United States Judicial Conference, will thereafter be subject to thorough public comment and reconsideration, will then be submitted to the United States Supreme Court for consideration and promulgation, and will finally be transmitted to Congress, which retains the ultimate power to veto any rule before it takes effect. H.R. 420 circumvents this process by its proposed amendments to Rule 11.


• The current version of Rule 11 has proven to be an effective means of discouraging dilatory motions practice and frivolous claims and defenses. There has been no demonstrated problem with the enforcement or operation of Rule 11, and a return to the mandatory imposition of sanctions without going through the process of the Rules Enabling Act would frustrate the purpose of the act and potentially harm the effective functioning of the judicial system.


• Congress should not dictate venue rules for state courts. Doing so undermines federalism principles.


• It should remain solely within the purview of the states to establish local rules for procedures, either through the state legislature or through a grant of rulemaking authority to the state judiciary. The intimate acquaintance with the local procedures and uses of the courts in each state lends support to maintaining a system that allows states to establish their own procedural rules.


• An effort by Congress to carve out venue and jurisdiction rules for personal injury claims in state courts undermines the legitimacy of such courts and may disrupt the effective functioning of state court systems. It certainly raises serious questions as to whether litigants would be able to adequately address legitimate civil claims in the state courts.

The ABA opposes enactment of this legislation.