PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.For Further Action See H.R.2215.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 2001
Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2001 - 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.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 $150,000 per person and minimal diversity of citizenship exists, subject to specified requirements. Authorizes venue for such action in any district in which a defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the accident occurred. Permits a district court to retain such actions for the determination of liability and punitive damages.Permits removal of actions which could have been brought in district court under the above provisions from State to U.S. district courts. Establishes a presumption in favor of discretionary remand to State courts for damages determinations after rulings on liability.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.
For Further Action See H.R.2215.
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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H893-894)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H893-894)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 860.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H893-898)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 9.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 107-14.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 107-14.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E280)
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.860 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.860 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.860 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.860 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.