(Footnote 48 return)
Final Order of Settlement, Unfried v. Charter Communications, Inc., No 99–L–48 (granted December 21, 2000).

(Footnote 49 return)
Robert D. Mauk, Lawyers Win Big In Class-Action Suits: Is It Justice Or Greed?, Charleston Daily Mail, June 19, 2001

(Footnote 50 return)
Jerry Heaster, Enough Already With Lawsuits, Kansas City Star, July 10, 1999, at C1.

(Footnote 51 return)
Editorial, We All Pay Dearly For Costly Class Actions, Corpus Christi Caller-Times, January 8, 2001.

(Footnote 52 return)
See David Koenig, Blockbuster tried to settle class-action lawsuits over late fees, Associated Press, June 6, 2001.

(Footnote 53 return)
Wendy Wilson, Blockbuster to settle suits on late fees, Daily Variety, June 4, 2001, at 10.

(Footnote 54 return)
Cynthia Corzo, Blockbuster Settles Class-Action Lawsuit in a Smart Business Move, Miami Herald, June 10, 2001.

(Footnote 55 return)
Monica Roman, A Blockbuster of a Legal Bill, Bus.Week, June 18, 2001, at 46.

(Footnote 56 return)
Phillip D. Bissett, Letter to the Editor, Wash. Post, June 8, 2001, at A28.

(Footnote 57 return)
Actions Without Class, supra n.1.

(Footnote 58 return)
See Barrow S.S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U.S. 100, 111 (1898) (''The object of the [diversity jurisdiction] provisions . . . conferring upon the [federal] courts . . . jurisdiction [over] controversies between citizens of different States of the Union . . . was to secure a tribunal presumed to be more impartial than a court of the state in which one litigant[ ] resides.''); Pease v. Peck, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 518, 520 (1856); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat) 304, 307 (1816). See also The Federalist No. 80, at 537–38 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed. 1961) (''[I]n order to [ensure] the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities to which the citizens of the union will be entitled, the national judiciary ought to preside in all cases in which one state or its citizens are opposed to another state or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary that its construction should be committed to that tribunal which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different states and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles [up]on which it is founded.'').

(Footnote 59 return)
See The Class Action Fairness Act of 1999: Hearing before the Subcomm. On Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, S. Hrg. No. 106–465, 106th Cong. (1999) at 100 (prepared statement of Prof. E. Donald Elliott, Yale Law School). See also James William Moor & Donald T. Weckstein, Diversity Jurisdiction: Past, Present and Future, 43 Tex L. Rev. 1, 16 (1964). See also Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 61, 87 (1809) (Marshall, C.J.) (''[Even if] tribunals of states will administer justice as impartially as those of the nation, to the parties of every description, . . . the Constitution itself . . . entertains apprehensions of the subject . . . , [such] that it has established national tribunals for the decision of controversies between . . . citizens of different states.'').

(Footnote 60 return)
John P. Frank, Historical Bases of the Federal Judicial System, 13 Law & Contemp. Probs. 3, 22–28 (1948); Henry J. Friendly, The Historic Bases of Diversity Jurisdiction, 41 Harv. L. Rev. 483 (1928).

(Footnote 61 return)
John J. Parker, The Federal Constitution and Recent Attacks Upon It, 18 A.B.A. J. 433, 437 (1932).

(Footnote 62 return)
See, e.g., Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (1973).

(Footnote 63 return)
See, e.g. Rosmer v. Pfizer Corp., 263 F.3d 110, 114–18 (4th Cir. 2001); Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2001); In re Abbott Labs., 51 F.3d 524, 526–27 (5th Cir. 1995), aff'd sub nom., Free v. Abbott Labs., 120 S. Ct. 1578 (2000) (per curiam; affirmance on tied vote); Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. v. Press Mechanical, Inc., 77 F.3d 928, 930–34 (7th Cir. 1996).

(Footnote 64 return)
Senate Report at 14.

(Footnote 65 return)
14B Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure, §3704, at 127 (3d ed. 1998) (emphasis added).

(Footnote 66 return)
See Davis v. Cannon Chevrolet-Olds, Inc., 182 F.3d 792, 797 (11th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added).

(Footnote 67 return)
Id.

(Footnote 68 return)
Id. at 798–99 (emphasis added).

(Footnote 69 return)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. America Sales Practice Litig., 148 F.3d 283, 305 (3d Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). Agreement with this view can also be found in Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 1079 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that there are ''persuasive reasons'' for viewing the class action in its totality for purposes of determining the existence of federal jurisdiction).

(Footnote 70 return)
The Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999: Hearing on H.R. 1875 and H.R. 2005 Before the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. (1999) (statement of Hon. Walter E. Dellinger), available at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/dell0721.htm.

(Footnote 71 return)
See Federal News Service Transcript, Mass Torts and Class Actions: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Property and the Courts, House Comm. on the Judiciary (March 9, 1998), at 19 (''FNS Transcript'').

(Footnote 72 return)
Id. at 33–34.

(Footnote 73 return)
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 1, 194–195 (1824).

(Footnote 74 return)
Jefferson County Election Results, available at www.co.jefferson.tx.us/cclerk/election—2000.htm.

(Footnote 75 return)
2000 Official Presidential General Election Results, available at http://fecweb1.fec.gov/pubrec/ 2000presgeresults.htm.