PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.3789 / 105th Congress

Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1998

Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 560 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3789 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. The bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record. The Chairman may...

Official summary

Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Sep 10, 1998

Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1998 - Amends the Federal judicial code to grant the district courts original jurisdiction of any civil action, regardless of the sum or value of the matter in controversy, which is brought as a class action in which any member of a proposed plaintiff class is: (1) a citizen of a State different from any defendant; (2) a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or (3) a citizen of a State and any defendant is a citizen or subject of a foreign state. Directs the district court to abstain from hearing any such action in which: (1) the substantial majority of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes are citizens of a single State of which the primary defendants are also citizens; and (2) the claims asserted will be governed primarily by the laws of that State. Authorizes the district court to abstain from hearing any such action in which: (1) all matters in controversy asserted by the individual members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate do not exceed the sum or value of $1 million, exclusive of interest and costs; (2) the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is less than 100; or (3) the primary defendants are States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief. Makes provisions of this Act regarding district court jurisdiction and removal of class actions (see sec. 3) inapplicable to any class action that is brought under the Securities Act of 1933 and to specified other securities-related class actions. Considers a member of a proposed class to be a citizen of a State different from a defendant corporation only if that member is a citizen of a State different from all States of which the defendant corporation is deemed a citizen. (Sec. 3) Authorizes a class action to be removed to a United States district court by any: (1) defendant without the consent of all defendants; or (2) plaintiff class member who is not a named or representative class member of the action for which removal is sought, without the consent of all members of such class. Makes such provision applicable to any class action before or after the entry of any order certifying a class. Specifies that the removal requirement relating to the 30-day filing period shall be met if a plaintiff class member who is not a named or representative class member of the action for which removal is sought files notice of removal within 30 days after receipt by such class member of the initial written notice of the class action provided at the district court's direction in accordance with rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Provides that if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after defendant's receipt of a copy of an amended paper from which it may first be ascertained by exercising due diligence (exercising due diligence is not a requirement of current law) that the case is one which is or has become removable, with an exception. Directs the court to strike the class allegations from the action and remand it to State court, if, after removal, it determines that no aspect of an action that is subject to its jurisdiction may be maintained as a class action under rule 23. Provides that upon remand of the action, the period of limitations for any claim that was asserted in the action on behalf of any named or unnamed member of any proposed class shall be deemed tolled as provided under Federal law. (Sec. 5) Directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study of the impact of the amendments made by this Act on the workload of the Federal courts, and to report the results to the Congress.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Hyde, Henry J. [R-IL-6] · R–IL

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
10 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 560 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3789 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. The bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record. The Chairman may...

  2. Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 397.

  3. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-702.

  4. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-702.

  5. Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 17 - 12.

  6. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  7. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  8. Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.

  9. Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  10. Subcommittee Hearings Held.

  11. Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  12. Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

  13. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

  14. Introduced in House

  15. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.3789 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.3789 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.3789 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.3789 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.

View full prompt & sources