| 词条 | Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act (LARA) of 2015 |
| 释义 |
| name = Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015 | fullname = A bill that would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require judges to impose mandatory sanctions on attorneys, law firms, or parties who file frivolous "claims, defenses, and other legal contentions."[1] The bill replaces the current rule, which allows judges' discretion to impose sanctions, and instead forces judges to impose mandatory sanctions prescribed by Congress.[2] | acronym = LARA of 2015 | nickname = | introduced in the = 114th | sponsored by = Rep. Lamar Smith (R, TX-21), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R- IA) | number of co-sponsors = House- 5(R), 0(D), 0(I); Senate- 1(R) | public law url = | cite public law = | cite statutes at large = | acts affected = | acts repealed = | title affected = | sections created = | sections affected = | agenciesaffected = | authorizationsofappropriations = | appropriations = | leghisturl = | introducedin = House and Senate | introducedbill = {{USBill|114|hr|758}} {{USBill|114|S|401}} | introducedby = Rep. Lamar Smith (R, TX-21), and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R- IA) | introduceddate = February 5, 2015 | committees = United States House Committee on the Judiciary, United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Senate Committee on the Judiciary | passedbody1 = US House of Representatives | passeddate1 = September 17, 2015 | passedvote1 = 241-185 [3] | passedbody2 = | passedas2 = | passeddate2 = | passedvote2 = | conferencedate = | passedbody3 = | passeddate3 = | passedvote3 = | agreedbody3 = | agreeddate3 = | agreedvote3 = | agreedbody4 = | agreeddate4 = | agreedvote4 = | passedbody4 = | passeddate4 = | passedvote4 = | signedpresident = | signeddate = | unsignedpresident = | unsigneddate = | vetoedpresident = | vetoeddate = | overriddenbody1 = | overriddendate1 = | overriddenvote1 = | overriddenbody2 = | overriddendate2 = | overriddenvote2 = | amendments = | SCOTUS cases = }} The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015 ({{USBill|114|hr|758}}, {{USBill|114|S|401}}) is legislation that amends Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require judges to impose mandatory sanctions on attorneys, law firms, or parties who file frivolous "claims, defenses, and other legal contentions."[1] The legislation replaces the current rule, which allows judges' discretion to impose sanctions, and instead forces judges to impose mandatory sanctions prescribed by Congress. It also removes the rule's safe harbor protection, which currently allows attorneys to correct their pleadings, claims or contentions within a 21-day period without fear of sanctions.[2] The bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate during the 114th United States Congress on February 5, 2015.[3][4] In a 19-13 vote on May 13,[5] the House Judiciary Committee passed the bill.[6] On September 17, 2015[7] the full United States House of Representatives passed the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act (LARA) of 2015 by a vote of 241-185.[8][9][10] ProvisionsThe legislation amends Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to:
Procedural historyThe Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on February 5, 2015 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R, TX-21).[3] It was subsequently referred to the United States House Committee on the Judiciary and the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.[3] An identical bill was introduced in the Senate on the same day by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R- IA) and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.[12] H.R. 758 and S. 401 bypass the normal Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule-making process, which is regulated by the Judicial Conference of the United States (the principal policy-making body of U.S. Courts), and alters the FRCP through congressional legislation.[13] On April 13, the Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Civil Rules sent a letter to Congress opposing H.R. 758 (LARA 2015) legislation.[14] The United States House Committee on the Judiciary began to mark-up the bill on April 15, 2015, but mark-up was not completed due to time constraints. The mark-up was rescheduled for May 13, 2015 and the bill was subsequently passed out of committee.[15] The bill was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on September 17, 2015.[9][10] Similarity to repealed 1983 rulePortions of H.R. 758 are similar in language to a Federal Rule that was introduced in 1983, but repealed with modifications in 1993 after widespread problems and substantial criticism.[14] Professor Lonny Hoffman of the University of Houston Law Center[16] testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice in 2011 to explain, "there is a remarkable degree of agreement among judges, lawyers, legal scholars and litigants across the political spectrum that the 1983 amendment of Rule 11 was one of the most ill-advised procedural experiments ever tried." Professor Hoffman testified that the rule produced "an avalanche of unwelcome satellite litigation" and that "civil rights and employment discrimination plaintiffs, in particular, were impacted the most severely" with these cases being subject to sanction motions "more than 28% of the time, well out of proportion to the percentage of such cases filed."[17][18] Similar versions of this legislation have been introduced in previous congressional sessions, but were not passed.[19] Support and oppositionThe legislation is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which believes mandatory sanctions will help curb unjustified lawsuits[20] and has publicly applauded its passage by the United House of Representatives.[21] Lamar Smith, of Texas is the primary sponsor of the legislation.[22][23] This legislation is opposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States,[14] the American Bar Association,[24] and a number of consumer rights organizations, including the Alliance for Justice, the Center for Justice & Democracy and Public Citizen.[25] In a group letter to Congress, the organizations expressed concern that the changes would "burden an understaffed judiciary, prolong expensive litigation, and unfairly penalize consumers and employees as participants in civil lawsuits."[25] Opposition to this legislation has been consistent through each yearly introduction of this bill.[26] In 2005, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a survey of federal trial judges to study how Rule 11 was operating.[27] They found that 91% of judges surveyed opposed mandatory sanctions provisions in Rule 11.[28] 86% supported current safe harbor provisions that protect an attorney who corrects their filings within 21 days. Only 16% believed that awarding attorney fees and other costs should be mandatory.[29] On September 17, 2015 the American Bar Association sent a letter to Congress[30] opposing this legislation. They explained "Even though on the surface the legislation may seem straightforward and appealing, a thorough examination of the issue provides compelling evidence that, rather than reducing frivolous lawsuits, H.R. 758 will encourage civil litigation abuse and increase court costs and delays." [30][31] The bill was passed later the same day.[8] See also
References1. ^1 Rule 11- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 2. ^1 2 3 4 Text of H.R. 758 (2015) https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr758/text 3. ^1 2 H.R. 758 (2015) https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr758 4. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/401/all-info |title=All Info - S.401 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015 |work=Library of Congress}} 5. ^http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/114/hr758 6. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/15/products-bills-committee-idUSL1N0Y607Z20150515|title=House committee advances asbestos, frivolous lawsuit bills|work=Reuters|accessdate=19 October 2015}} 7. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.natlawreview.com/article/week-congress-september-14-2015|title=Election, Lobbying, Campaign Finance & Voting Law News|work=natlawreview.com|accessdate=19 October 2015}} 8. ^1 2 {{cite web|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/254128-house-passes-bill-to-combat-frivolous-lawsuits|title=House passes bill to combat frivolous lawsuits|work=TheHill|accessdate=19 October 2015}} 9. ^1 {{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/758/actions|title=Actions - H.R.758 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015|work=congress.gov|accessdate=19 October 2015}} 10. ^1 {{cite web|url=http://www.law360.com/articles/704032/house-oks-mandatory-penalties-for-frivolous-lawsuits|title=House OKs Mandatory Penalties For Frivolous Lawsuits|work=law360.com|accessdate=19 October 2015}} 11. ^Rule 11- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 12. ^S. 401 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/401/all-info 13. ^How the Rulemaking Process Works - Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Judiciary http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/rules/about-rulemaking/how-rulemaking-process-works.aspx 14. ^1 2 Sutton, Jeffrey, and David Campbell. "Views of the Judicial Conference Rules Committee on H.R. 758." Letter to United States House Judiciary Committee. 13 Apr. 2015. Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 15. ^{{cite web |url=http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/markups-meetings?ID=73DEA76A-B0CA-4884-A4E4-1103A3CBA01B |title=Markup: H.R. 427, the "Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015"; H.R. __, the "All Economic Regulations are Transparent (ALERT) Act of 2015"; and H.R. 758, the "Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015" |work=US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee}} 16. ^"Prof. Lonny Hoffman" http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/main.asp?PID=179 17. ^Testimony before House subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Hoffman03112011.pdf 18. ^http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202489469505 "The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 201- A previous mandatory-sanctions regime under Rule 11, in effect 1983 to 1993, was eliminated because it did not work." National Law Journal. 19. ^{{cite web|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/votes/190310-house-approves-automatic-fines-for-filing-frivolous-lawsuits|title=House approves automatic fines for filing frivolous lawsuits|work=TheHill|accessdate=19 October 2015}} 20. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.uschamber.com/blog/institute-legal-reform-turns-tide-lawsuit-abuses |title=Institute for Legal Reform Turns Tide on Lawsuit Abuses |work=U.S. Chamber of Commerce}} 21. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150917006562/en/U.S.-Chamber-Applauds-House-Passage-Lawsuit-Abuse#.Vfwylc64lPU|title=U.S. Chamber Applauds House Passage of Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act|date=17 September 2015|work=businesswire.com|accessdate=19 October 2015}} 22. ^{{cite web|url=http://riponadvance.com/stories/510497204-smith-lara-act-will-end-the-legalized-extortion-of-lawsuit-abuse|title=Smith: LARA Act will end the 'legalized extortion' of lawsuit abuse|author=Ripon Advance News Service|date=9 February 2015|work=riponadvance.com|accessdate=19 October 2015}} 23. ^{{cite web|url=http://palmettobusinessdaily.com/stories/510638950-sanford-clyburn-vote-differently-on-lawsuit-abuse-reduction-act|title=Sanford, Clyburn vote differently on Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act|author=Palmetto Business Daily Reports|date=19 September 2015|work=palmettobusinessdaily.com|accessdate=19 October 2015}} 24. ^ABA Letter Opposing LARA 2015 http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/2015mar23_lawsuitabusereductionacthouse.authcheckdam.pdf 25. ^1 Group letter to Congress in Opposition of "The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act" http://centerjd.org/content/letter-congress-opposing-lara-and-fact-act 26. ^"House Passes Lawsuit Abuse Bill Reinstating Mandatory Rule 11 Sanctions" http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/house_passes_lawsuit_abuse_bill_reinstating_mandatory_rule_11_sanctions_aba/ 27. ^Federal Judicial Center, Report of a Survey of United States District Judges' Experiences and Views Concerning Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2 (2005). 28. ^Federal Judicial Center, Report of a Survey of United States District Judges' Experiences and Views Concerning Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2 (2005) at 5-6. 29. ^Federal Judicial Center, Report of a Survey of United States District Judges' Experiences and Views Concerning Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2 (2005) at 8. 30. ^1 https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/2015sept17_laraletter.authcheckdam.pdf 31. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_letter_says_tort_reform_bill_could_actually_increase_litigation|title=ABA letter says tort reform bill could actually increase litigation|author=Lorelei Laird|work=ABA Journal|accessdate=19 October 2015}} External links{{wikisource|Portal:Acts of the United States Congresses/Acts of the 113th United States Congress}}
1 : Proposed legislation of the 114th United States Congress |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。