PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: and House requests a conference.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Jul 30, 1999
Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal judicial code to allow a civil action transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (multidistrict litigation) to be transferred for trial purposes by the judge or judges of the transferee district to whom the action was assigned, to the transferee or other district 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 by the panel for the determination of compensatory damages to the district court from which it was transferred, unless the court to which the action has been transferred also finds, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice, that the action should be retained for the determination of compensatory damages.Grants Federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of a single accident that results in the death or injury of 25 or more natural persons, provided the injury has resulted in damages which exceed $75,000 per person and minimal diversity of citizenship (as prescribed in this Act) exists. Permits any person with a claim arising from such an accident to intervene as a party plaintiff, even if that person could not have brought an action in district court as an original matter. Requires a federal district court in which such an action is pending to notify the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation. Authorizes venue for such action in any district in which a defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the accident occurred.Expands district court authority over such transferred actions to permit joint trial of liability and punitive damage issues. Calls for remand of damage determinations (other than punitive damages), including the possibility of remand to State courts in which actions were originally filed, unless the Federal court finds that it would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice to retain the damages phase of the action as well.Permits removal of actions from State to U.S. district courts to invoke the proposed jurisdiction and to join actions within the jurisdiction pending before the Federal court. Authorizes removal before trial within 30 days of a defendant's becoming a party to a suit under this Act, or at a later time with leave of the district court. Establishes a presumption in favor of discretionary remand to State courts for damages determinations after rulings on liability.Provides that the district court in which an action under this Act is pending shall determine the source of the applicable substantive law and is not bound by the choice of law rules by any State. Requires the responsible district court to issue an order designating the jurisdiction whose law is to be applied in all actions under this Act arising from the same incident. Identifies factors that may be relevant in such choice of law determinations.Authorizes nationwide service of process and, upon a showing of good cause, nationwide service of subpoenas with regard to actions under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-9] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: and House requests a conference.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
The Speaker appointed conferees: Hyde, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Conyers, and Berman.
On motion that the House disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference Agreed to without objection. (consideration: CR H12020)
Mr. Sensenbrenner asked unanimous consent that the House disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S13326-13327)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 341.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Referred to Subcommittee on Oversight and Courts.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2112.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8106-8109)
Mr. Coble moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 165.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-276.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-276.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) 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.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1182-1183)
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.2112 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.2112 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.2112 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.2112 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.