H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act (LARA), is scheduled for a mark-up in the House Judiciary Committee next Wednesday, September 8, 2004. LARA would restore mandatory economic sanctions against plaintiffs' lawyers who file frivolous claims.  Frivolous claims remain the No. 1 civil justice anathema for small businesses.  LARA would also put an end to forum shopping by litigation tourists to Judicial HellholesÔ .  Claims could only be filed where a plaintiff lived, worked, was allegedly injured or in the defendant's principal place of business.  LARA would overcome a major obstacle to interstate commerce -- rampant forum shopping.

We encourage you to contact Committee Members (list available at http://clerk.house.gov/committee/index.html?comcode=HJU00) and urge their support for this common-sense reform. A sample letter has been attached to this email as well as a copy of the legislation and a bullet point summary. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Matt Fullenbaum, Director of Legislation, at mfullenbaum@atra.org or (202) 682-1163, ext. 17.

3001 Douglas Blvd., Suite 225  Roseville, CA 95661 Ph: 916-677-5595

Executive Summary

October 18, 2004 memo from BINGHAM McClatchy LLP

RE: Proposition 64 and Discussion of Prominent Unfair Competition Law Cases

Author:

Trenton H. Norris - Partner in the San Francisco office of Bingham McCutchen and has significant experience with the Unfair Competition Law in the environmental and consumer protection field.

 Content:
Statements that suggest Proposition 64 would undercut environmental and consumer protections are simply wrong – and cases being cited by initiative opponents are being misrepresented.
Key findings include: 

§         Under Proposition 64, as in every other state, consumer and environmental citizen groups will still be able to file a lawsuit if:

1.      they represent one or more people who have been harmed

2.      they make claims under one of the dozens of laws that specifically allow for enforcement by those who have not been harmed 

§         A review of the UCL suits being cited by Proposition 64 opponents shows the initiative would not have prevented them because:

1.      people had actually been harmed

2.      governmental prosecutors and regulators also took enforcement action

3.      other laws were available (and in most cases, also utilized), or

4.      some combination of these factors

§         The Attorney General, District Attorneys, and City Attorneys will not be affected by this initiative, and they will be ensured a continuous source of funding for enforcement of consumer protection laws under this initiative.

§         The UCL cases cited by opponents do not support their arguments against the initiative.

§         Proposition 64 will bring California in line with the laws of other states, and prevent unscrupulous attorneys from using the leverage of a threatened lawsuit to shakedown businesses over technical violations that have harmed no one and not merited action by governmental authorities.

Proposition 64 will not detract from consumer or environmental protection. 

3001 Douglas Blvd., Suite 225  Roseville, CA 95661 Ph: 916-677-5595

For Immediate Release                                                                                     Contact:  Jean Munoz  

October 13, 2004                                                                                                                    916-708-0977

Trial Lawyers Unmasked

The Real Supporters & Funders of Protecting Extortion Loophole

Ad Campaign Launched to Deceive Voters

SACRAMENTO – Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits (CSSL) issued the following statement by Rick Claussen, Campaign Manager, in response to recent campaign reports that expose trial lawyers in their attempt to protect a loophole that currently allows them to extort millions from California businesses.  Their deceptive advertising campaign will begin today.

 “The same trial lawyers who oppose Prop. 64 have spent $35 million over the last decade to block real reform in the legislature. It’s no surprise that they are now spending millions more in an attempt to mislead voters through a very deceptive advertising campaign to block reform at the ballot. 

 “The trial lawyers are focused on protecting their ability to extort millions of dollars from California’s small businesses. They try and hide behind the puppet consumer and environmental organizations that broadcast their scare tactics. Voters will not be fooled.

 “We are proud of the breadth and depth of support Proposition 64 has received – including Governor Schwarzenegger, over a thousand taxpayer, non-profit and business groups, representing millions of Californians, all committed to stopping shakedown lawsuits that are damaging our state’s economic recovery by making victims of small business.”

 Special interest trial lawyers have recently raised $1.6 million – including $500K from the Consumer Attorney Issues Political Action Committee, and another $250K from James Sturdevant, the organization’s president. 

Proposition 64 ensures continued consumer protection from unfair competition, and simply requires an attorney who files a lawsuit to have an actual client who has been harmed or suffered financial injury.

This page was last updated on 04/19/05  

© 2002 San Diego County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse