PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H685-686, H686, H687-690, H690-691)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 2, 2005
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to specify the calculation of contingent and other attorney's fees in proposed class action settlements that provide for the award of coupons to class members.
Prohibits a Federal district court from approving: (1) a proposed coupon settlement absent a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) a proposed settlement involving payments to class counsel that would result in a net monetary loss to class members, absent a finding that the loss is substantially outweighed by nonmonetary benefits; (3) a proposed settlement that provides greater sums to some class members solely because they are closer geographically to the court; or (4) a proposed settlement that provides for the payment of a greater share of the award to a class representative versus other class members.
Grants district courts original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and that is between citizens of different States or between citizens of a State and a foreign State or its citizens or subjects.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Lists those factors pursuant to which a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action.
Sets forth provisions governing the removal of interstate class actions to Federal district court and the review on appeal of remand orders.
Grants the Federal courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear appeals of class action certification orders if notice of appeal is filed within 10 days of entry of such an order. Requires discovery and other proceedings to be stayed during the pendency of an appeal unless the court finds that specific discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice.
People & committees
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA-6] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H685-686, H686, H687-690, H690-691)
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E136)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. 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.516 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.516 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.516 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.516 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.