PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Class Action Fairness Act of 2000

By Senator Hatch from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 106-420. Additional and Minority views filed.

Official summary

Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Jul 27, 2000

Class Action Fairness Act of 2000 - Amends the Federal judicial code to require that, no later than ten days after a proposed settlement in a class action is filed in court, the attorneys representing the class serve the attorney general of each State (State AG) in which a class member resides and the Department of Justice (DOJ) with specified information, including notice of a proposed settlement. Makes this Act applicable to all plaintiff class actions filed in or removed to Federal court except any such class action solely involving claims concerning: (1) a covered security; (2) the internal affairs or governance of a business enterprise under State law; or (3) the rights, duties, and obligations relating to any security.Prohibits the holding of a hearing to consider final approval of a proposed settlement earlier than 120 days after the date on which the State AGs and the U.S. Attorney General are served notice.Requires any court with jurisdiction over a plaintiff class action to require that: (1) any written notice provided to the class through the mail or publication in printed media contain a short summary written in plain, easily understood language describing the subject matter of the class action, the legal consequences of joining such action, and, if the notice is informing class members of a proposed settlement agreement, specified information; and (2) any notice provided through television or radio to inform class members of their rights to be excluded from a class action or a proposed settlement, if such right exists, describe in plain, easily understood language the persons who may potentially become class members and explain that the failure of persons falling within the definition of the class to exercise their right to be excluded will result in such persons' inclusion in such action.Authorizes a class member to refuse to comply with, and choose not to be bound by, a settlement agreement or consent decree in a class action if the class member resides in a State where the State AG has not been provided notice and materials under this Act.(Sec. 3) Grants district courts original jurisdiction in class actions involving diversity jurisdiction where the matter in controversy exceeds $2 million (based on aggregated individual claims of class members), exclusive of interest and costs. Makes such provision inapplicable to a civil action in which: (1) the substantial majority of the members of the proposed plaintiff class and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed and the claims asserted therein will be governed primarily by the laws of that State; (2) the primary defendants are States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief; or (3) the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is less than 100.Directs the district court to dismiss any civil action that is subject to the jurisdiction of the court solely under this section if the court determines the action may not proceed as a class action based on a failure to satisfy the conditions of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifies that nothing herein prohibits plaintiffs from filing an amended class action in Federal court or filing an action in State court but that any such filed action may be removed if it is one of which the U.S. district courts have original jurisdiction.Provides that: (1) in any action that is dismissed under this section and that is filed by any of the original named plaintiffs in the same State court venue in which the dismissed action was originally filed, the limitations periods on all reasserted claims shall be deemed tolled for the period during which the dismissed class action was pending; and (2) the limitations periods on any claims that were asserted in a class action dismissed herein that are subsequently asserted in an individual action shall be deemed tolled for the period during which the dismissed action was pending.Makes this section inapplicable to class actions solely involving a claim relating to: (1) the internal affairs or governance of a business entity under State law; and (2) the rights, duties, and obligations relating to any security.(Sec. 4) Authorizes removal of class actions to a district court by any: (1) defendant without the consent of all defendants; or (2) plaintiff class member who is not a named or representative member without the consent of all members.Makes this section inapplicable to class actions solely involving claims concerning: (1) a covered security; (2) the internal affairs or governance of a business enterprise under State law; or (3) the rights, duties, and obligations relating to any security.(Sec. 5) Directs the Judicial Conference of the United States, within 12 months, to prepare and transmit to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees a report on class action settlements.

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

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] · R–IA

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
7 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. By Senator Hatch from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 106-420. Additional and Minority views filed.

  2. By Senator Hatch from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 106-420. Additional and Minority views filed.

  3. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 732.

  4. Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.

  5. Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.

  6. Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

  7. Committee on the Judiciary. Committee consideration and Mark Up Session held.

  8. Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-465.

  9. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

  10. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1166-1167)

  11. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

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

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.353 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 S.353 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 S.353 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 S.353 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