(Footnote 13 return)
Mass Torts and Class Action Lawsuits: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1998) (''1998 House Hearing''), at 140–53.

(Footnote 14 return)
Deborah R. Hensler, et al., Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gains (Executive Summary 1999) (''ICJ/RAND Study'') at 7.

(Footnote 15 return)
See John H. Beisner and Jessica Davidson Miller, They're Making A Federal Case Out Of It . . . In State Court, Civil Justice Report No. 3, Sept. 2001 (''Manhattan Institute Study'').

(Footnote 16 return)
As detailed below, the researchers also looked at cases filed during the early months of calendar year 2001, to the extent possible.

(Footnote 17 return)
Manhattan Institute Study at 7–12.

(Footnote 18 return)
See Michael Shaw and Jim Getz, Filing Of Class Action Suits Surges In Metro East Area; Tactics For Finding Clients Are Assailed, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 19, 2000.

(Footnote 19 return)
Manhattan Institute Study at 8–9.

(Footnote 20 return)
Id. at 9.

(Footnote 21 return)
See Manhattan Institute Study at 9 (citing L.H. Mecham, Judicial Business of the United States Courts: 2000 Report of the Director 405 (2001) (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts).

(Footnote 22 return)
Manhattan Institute Study at 9.

(Footnote 23 return)
Id. at 12, 19.

(Footnote 24 return)
Id. at 13–25.

(Footnote 25 return)
Id. at 10–11.

(Footnote 26 return)
Id. at 10.

(Footnote 27 return)
Schoenleber v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Company, No. 01–L–99 (filed Jan. 18, 2001); Lancey v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., No. 01–L–113 (filed Jan. 29, 2001); Richardson v. Progressive Premier Ins. Co. of Illinois, No. 01–L–149 (filed Feb. 6, 2001); Edwards v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., No. 01–L–151 (filed Feb. 6, 2001); Knackstedt v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., No. 01–L–153 (filed Feb. 6, 2001); Bordoni v. CGU Ins. Group, No. 01–L–157 (filed Feb. 6, 2001); Huff v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Illinois, No. 01–L–158 (filed Feb. 6, 2001); Billups v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 01–L–159 (filed Feb. 6, 2001); Moore v. Shelter Ins. Co., No. 01–L–160 (filed Feb. 6, 2001).

(Footnote 28 return)
Hobbs v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., No. 99–L–1068 (filed Nov. 2, 1999); Kelly v. Progressive Premier Ins. Co., No. 00–L–277 (filed Apr. 3, 2000).

(Footnote 29 return)
Schachter v. Mut. Benefits Corp., No. 98–4490 AI (filed July 28, 1998); Thum v. Accelerated Benefits Corp., No. 98–9389 AN (filed Oct. 21, 1998); Schwartz v. Dedicated Res., Inc., No. 98–9393 AD (filed Oct. 21, 1998); Chancellor v. Future First Fin'l Group, Inc., No. 99–4429 AE (filed May 6, 1999); Brackman v. Dedicated Res., Inc., No. 99–9361 (filed Sept. 30, 1999).

(Footnote 30 return)
See Filing Of Class Action Suits Surges In Metro East Area, supra n.10.

(Footnote 31 return)
See Actions Without Class, supra n.1.

(Footnote 32 return)
See The Lakin Law Firm, Class Actions, at http://www.weblinecommunications.com/practice/ class-action/index.htm.

(Footnote 33 return)
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo: About Class Action Lawsuits: FAQ, at http://www.bermanesq.com/content/classaction-faq.asp (cases filed by Burt & Pucillo prior to merger).

(Footnote 34 return)
Manhattan Institute Study at 9.

(Footnote 35 return)
Actions Without Class, supra n.1.

(Footnote 36 return)
Manhattan Institute Study at 11.

(Footnote 37 return)
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2000, S. Rep. No. 106–420, 106th Cong. (2000) (''Senate Report'') at 19 (''Yet another common abuse [of the class action device in state courts] is the filing of 'copy cat' class actions (i.e., duplicative class actions asserting similar claims on behalf of essentially the same people).''). As noted in the Senate Report, ''sometimes these duplicative actions are filed by lawyers who hope to wrest the potentially lucrative lead role away from the original lawyers, [and] in other instances, the 'copy cat' class actions are blatant forum shopping—the original class lawyers file similar class actions before different courts in an effort to find a receptive judge who will rapidly certify a class.'' Id. When these cases are filed in state courts, there is no way to coordinate or consolidate the cases; the cases must be litigated in an ''uncoordinated, redundant fashion.'' Id. ''The result is enormous waste—multiple judges of different courts must spend considerable time adjudicating precisely the same claims asserted on behalf of precisely the same people.'' Id. at 19–20. ''As a result, State courts and class counsel may 'compete' to control the cases, often harming all the parties involved.'' Id. See also Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999, H.R. Rep. No. 106–320 (1999) at 9.

(Footnote 38 return)
746 N.E.2d 1242 (Ill. Ct. App. 2001).

(Footnote 39 return)
Id.at 1254.

(Footnote 40 return)
Id.

(Footnote 41 return)
See Matthew J. Wald, Suit Against Auto Insurer Could Affect Nearly All Drivers, N.Y. Times, Sept. 27, 1998, §1, at 29.

(Footnote 42 return)
Senate Report at 20.

(Footnote 43 return)
The Alabama Supreme Court finally issued several rulings in 1999 that have dampened this behavior, and the Alabama legislature has established restrictions as well. But when such action is taken in one state, counsel simply move the class action show to another jurisdiction where the courts have shown a lax attitude toward regulating the class device; many believe that is why so many class actions are sprouting in Jefferson County, Texas and Madison County, Illinois.

(Footnote 44 return)
ICJ/RAND Study at 21–22.

(Footnote 45 return)
Patrick Slevin, Class-Action Lawsuit Abuse Threatens Quality Of Life For All Floridians, Tampa Tribune, Sept. 16, 2000.

(Footnote 46 return)
Kamilewics v. Bank of Boston, 92 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 1996).

(Footnote 47 return)
''Class Action Lawsuits: Examining Victim Compensation and Attorneys' Fees: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,'' 105th Cong. (1997) (statement of Martha Preston).