Here are some of the worst provisions of AB 1505:

Requires Judges to consider the merits of a plaintiff?s claims in order to certify a case as a class action but precludes plaintiff from obtaining discovery on the merits until after the case is certified

Current law allows plaintiffs to obtain (through the process known as "discovery") the documents and other evidence plaintiffs need to support the elements of their cases, including class-certification requirements. This makes sense because, as the party bringing the lawsuit, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the lawsuit is legitimate and that it should be certified to proceed as a class action. To do that, plaintiffs need to be able to obtain evidence.

If AB 1505 became law, plaintiffs would find themselves in an unworkable catch-22 situation. That is because, AB 1505 requires a plaintiff to prove all or some of the merits of her case before that case can be certified as a class action, but allows defendants to withhold the very evidence that would prove the merits of plaintiffs' case until after the case is certified to proceed as a class action. This is a fundamentally unfair requirement, which will result in the inability to certify legitimate class-action claims - not because those cases do not have merit, but because the law would preclude plaintiffs from obtaining the proof necessary to prove the merits of those cases.

Requires each individual class member to appear in court to prove each and every element of his or her claim; which is precisely what class-actions were intended to prevent

No one can accuse President Bush of being soft on lawsuit abuse, yet, even President Bush has said that "Class-actions can serve a valuable purpose in our legal system. They allow numerous victims of the same wrong-doing to merge their claims into a single lawsuit. When used properly, class-actions make the legal system more efficient and help guarantee that injured people receive proper compensation."

One way they do this is by combining similar claims that would be too small for people to pursue on their own cost effectively into a single action, in which one or more Class Representatives sue on behalf of a large number of Class Members and one court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who decide to exclude themselves from the Class.

AB 1505 would turn class-action law on its head by requiring that each individual class member come before the Court to prove every element of his or her individual claim including individual injury and the amount of damages - the very result class-actions were intended to eliminate in the first place.

Strips judges of their ability to decide whether the equities if a particular case requires the defendant to bear all or some of the cost of providing Class Notice

In most cases, once a case is certified to proceed as a class action, the parties must notify class members of the judge's decision and give them the opportunity to decide if they want to remain in the class. The cost of that notice can be quite high, depending on the number of class members and the kind of notice the court deems most practicable (e.g., first-class mailed notice, published notice, etc.). In a large case, it is not uncommon for the cost of notice to exceed several-hundred-thousands of dollars. Current law allows a judge to decide whether plaintiffs, the defendant, or both should pay for all or some of the cost of the class-action notice. The judge arrives at his or her decision by examining the equities of each individual case and considering such factors as the egregiousness of the defendant's alleged conduct, the strength of the evidence plaintiffs have provided to support their allegations, and whether plaintiffs have already prevailed on a portion of their legal claims.

AB 1505 would strip judges of their ability to decide which party should bear the cost of class notice by requiring them to always require the plaintiffs to bear 100% of this huge cost, regardless of how strongly the merits augur in favor of shifting all or some of that cost to the defendants.

Could bankrupt plaintiffs' counsel by requiring them to pay to notify class members each and every time something happens in the lawsuit.

To make matters worse, AB 1505 also contains a brand new notice provision - one that does not exist anywhere else in the law. Under this provision, Plaintiffs could have to pay to notify class members of "any step in the action." Given the number of steps in every lawsuit (even small lawsuits) such a requirement could literally bankrupt plaintiffs' counsel by requiring them to spend millions of dollars in notice costs over the course of a class-action lawsuit. There is no legitimate reason to require that Plaintiffs incur these costs.

The purpose of providing what is typically called "class notice" is to ensure that class members are given the right to decide whether they want to remain in the class. If they decide they do not want to do so, the notice gives them the information they need to exclude themselves from most cases. While this type of Notice serves a vital function (one that is mandated by the Constitution) there is no similar reason for requiring plaintiffs' counsel to inundate class members with the kind of additional notices AB 1505 contemplates. That is because the interests of the class are protected by the Class Representative (i.e., the person or persons who brought the case), who is the person or persons to whom plaintiffs' counsel report on the progression of the lawsuit.