PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1182-1183)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 3, 1999
Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal judicial code to grant 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 amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 per person and minimal diversity of citizenship exists. Authorizes venue 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 (previously covered only pretrial proceedings) 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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1182-1183)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 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.967 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.967 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.967 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.967 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.