Other Judges Wonder Why Certain Types of Cases
Keep Getting Assigned To Judge Jack B. Weinstein

(Note: text of this conversation was taken from a hearing in the United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit that occurred on February 13, 2003 between the Honorable Joseph A. Cabranes, presiding judge and Murray R. Garnick, Esq., attorney for the appellants
in Empire Health Choice versus Philip Morris, Inc., et. al. [NO. 02-7276] [Arta Pascullo, hearing reporter], pages 3-6.)

Honorable Cabranes:
We will hear Blue Cross and Blue Shield versus Philip Morris, Inc., et al.

Mr. Garnick:
May it please the Court, Murray Garnick for appellants.

Honorable Cabranes:
We are familiar with the case, as you know. This is the way we operate here: I have a preliminary judicial administration question to put to you, and opposite counsel may want to address it or not later. It’s a very simple one.

While it is for me always a pleasure to review the work of my long-time friend judge Jack B. Weinstein, I can’t help but wonder how and why these cases involving so-called aggregation of claims invariably are assigned to Judge Weinstein in the Eastern District of New York. (emphasis added)

Is there a rule or practice in the Eastern District of New York that Judge Weinstein is assigned to all mega cases involving aggregated cases? (emphasis added)

Mr. Garnick:
Not that I know. I believe that the plaintiffs are in the practice of indicating to the clerk that aggregated claims are related to other aggregated claims in the context of tobacco. So that these claims invariably get assigned to Judge Weinstein.

Honorable Cabranes:
They check the box in the famous complaint as to whether it’s a related case and under the rules in any district court, it goes to the judge to whom it is assigned to be related and that judge has to make the decision in due course as to whether he will or will not keep the case?

Mr. Garnick:
Yes, sir.

Honorable Cabranes:
It’s curiosity. I’m not sure if it is good or bad. It is a bit startling, since the federal courts put a lot of great premium on the randomness of the assignment of cases. Did you object to his at any point? (emphasis added)

Mr. Garnick:
We have objected to a number of assignments to Judge Weinstein of the aggregated cases. I’ll have to let the court know if we objected to this particular case.

Honorable Cabranes:
Why don’t you send us a letter by tomorrow? Do it by fax to the clerk’s office.

Mr. Ganick:
I certainly will. This case should never have gone to trial.

Why Are the NAACP and their Lawyer
Elisa Barnes Afraid of a Random Assignment?

Pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act seeks to protect firearms and ammunition manufacturers from being sued for the criminal misuse of their lawful products by third parties. This legislation seeks to prevent abuses to the American legal system.

Only passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036 / S 659) will eliminate these frivolous lawsuits that threaten to destroy one of America's oldest, most important industries and eliminate the jobs of thousands of Americans. With 243 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and 51 co-sponsors in the Senate, the Act enjoys strong bi-partisan support.

On Thursday, April 3, 2003 the Act was passed out of the House Judiciary Committee and onto the whole House by an overwhelming majority of votes. This was the last legislative hurtle the Act had to clear before it could be voted on by the entire House of Representatives. The House is expected to vote on the Act in the near future. See Testimony of Lawrence G. Keane

According to a recent national poll conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 69% of Americans would be more favorable toward their Senator or Representative if they voted to reform the way class action lawsuits are handled in the United States. A recent poll conducted by the American Tort Reform Association found that 83.4% of Americans believe there are too many lawsuits in America.