PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Apr 19, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to allow a civil action transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (multidistrict litigation) to be transferred to the transferee or other district for trial purposes in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Directs that any such action transferred for trial purposes be remanded to the district court from which it was transferred for the determination of compensatory damages unless the court determines the same justification applies to retaining the action for damages determination.
Authorizes the transferee court to retain actions transferred when jurisdiction is or could have been based on the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 (granting district courts original jurisdiction of any civil action involving minimal diversity between adverse parties that arises from a single accident, where at least 75 natural persons have died in the accident at a discrete location) for the determination of liability and punitive damages. Directs that an action retained for the determination of liability be remanded to the district court from which the action was transferred, or to the State court from which the action was removed, for the determination of damages other than punitive damages, unless the court finds that the action should be retained for the determination of such damages for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2120)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2120)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1038.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2120-2121)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 10.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-24.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-24.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1038 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1038 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1038 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1038 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.