Appendix 3

STAYING DISCOVERY

MODEL LEGISLATION

    In any civil action in which class certification is being sought, all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless the court finds, upon the motion of any party, that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.

 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Appendix 4

APPELLATE BONDS

MODEL LEGISLATION

    (NOTE: Dollar amounts will need to be determined based upon state economic and political considerations.)

    Section 1. Waiver of Appeal Bond

(A) The state supersedeas bond requirements shall be waived as to that portion of any civil award for damages that exceeds $—————————————————if the party or parties found liable seek a stay of enforcement of the judgment during the appeal.

(B) If the party seeking the appeal is a small business organized and doing business under the laws of this state, the state supersedeas bond requirements shall be waived as to that portion of any civil award for damages that exceeds $—————————————————while any appeals are pending. A small business is a business that has 50 or fewer employees and annual revenues of $5,000,000 or less.

 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
(C) If plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a party bringing an appeal, for whom the supersedeas bond requirement has been waived, is purposefully dissipating its assets or diverting assets outside the jurisdiction of the United States courts, waiver shall be rescinded and the bond requirement shall be reinstated for the full amount of the judgment.

(D) A court may otherwise waive the filing of a supersedeas bond in a civil action for good cause shown.

    Section 2. Effective Date

    This Act shall take effect on its date of enactment and shall apply to any action which has not yet begun or which is pending on the date of enactment of this Act.

P2.eps

Q2.eps

R2.eps

S2.eps

T2.eps

 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
U2.eps

G.eps

H.eps

I.eps

J.eps

K.eps

L.eps

M.eps

N.eps

O.eps

P.eps

Q.eps

 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

R.eps

S.eps

T.eps

U.eps

V.eps

W.eps

X.eps

Y.eps

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

F.eps

 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    

Z.eps

A2.eps

B2.eps

C2.eps

D2.eps

E2.eps

F2.eps

G2.eps

H2.eps

I2.eps

J2.eps

K2.eps

 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

L2.eps

M2.eps

N2.eps

V2.eps

W2.eps

X2.eps

Y2.eps

Z2.eps

A3.eps

B3.eps

C3.eps

 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
D3.eps

E3.eps

F3.eps

G3.eps

H3.eps

I3.eps

J3.eps

K3.eps

L3.eps

M3.eps

N3.eps

O3.eps

P3.eps

 Page 147       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Q3.eps

R3.eps

S3.eps

T3.eps

U3.eps

V3.eps

W3.eps

X3.eps

(Footnote 1 return)
See E.J. Cabraser, Life After Amchem: The Class Struggle Continues, 13 Loy. L.A.L.Rev. 373, 368 (1998) (''[i]t is no secret that class actions—formerly the province of federal diversity jurisdiction—are being brought increasingly in state courts'').

(Footnote 2 return)
See David v. Carl Cannon Chevrolet-Olds, Inc., 182 F.3d 792, 798 (11th Cir. 1999) (Nangle, J., concurring) (''[p]laintiffs' attorneys are increasingly filing nationwide class actions in various state courts'').

(Footnote 3 return)
See J. Beisner & J. Miller, They're Making a Federal Case Out of It . . . In State Court, Civil Justice Rep't No. 3 (Sept. 2001), to be reprinted in Harv. J. L. & Pol. (2001/2002).

(Footnote 4 return)
See Actions Without Class, Wash. Post, August 27, 2001, at A14.

(Footnote 5 return)
See David v. Carl Cannon Chevrolet-Olds, Inc., 182 F.3d 792, 793–794 (11th Cir. 1999).

(Footnote 6 return)
See Snider v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 97–L–114 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Williamson County).

(Footnote 7 return)
One class action was filed on November 29, but was withdrawn almost immediately on plaintiff's own accord and was not refilled. Thus, the class actions that were involved in the eventual settlement were all filed after the replacement policy was already announced.

(Footnote 8 return)
See Benedict & Seidel, Special Compensation to Named Plaintiffs in Securities Class Actions, 24 Rev. of Sec. & Commodities Reg. 195, 200 (Nov. 13, 1991); Krislov, Scrutiny of the Bounty: Incentive Awards for Plaintiffs in Class Litigation, 18 Ill. B.J.286 (1990) (''[m]any commentators have said that awarding representatives any more than their proportionate amount of the class recovery creates unacceptable conflict between the class and representatives'').

(Footnote 9 return)
Actions Without Class, Wash. Post, August 27, 2001, at A14.

(Footnote 10 return)
Deborah Hensler, et al., Preliminary Results of Rand Study Of Class Action Litigation (1997).

(Footnote 11 return)
Analysis: Class Action Litigation, Class Action Watch, Spring 1999, at 3 (Figure 2), available at www.fed-soc.org/classaction1–2.pdf.

(Footnote 12 return)
Id. at 2 (Figure 1).