Judicial Improvements Act of 1990

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Judicial Improvements Act of 1990”.

TITLE I—CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION PLANS

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the “Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990”.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The problems of cost and delay in civil litigation in any United States district court must be addressed in the context of the full range of demands made on the district court’s resources by both civil and criminal matters.

(2) The courts, the litigants, the litigants’ attorneys, and the Congress and the executive branch, share responsibility for cost and delay in civil litigation and its impact on access to the courts, adjudication of cases on the merits, and the ability of the civil justice system to provide proper and timely judicial relief for aggrieved parties.

(3) The solutions to problems of cost and delay must include significant contributions by the courts, the litigants, the litigants’ attorneys, and by the Congress and the executive branch.

(4) In identifying, developing, and implementing solutions to problems of cost and delay in civil litigation, it is necessary to achieve a method of consultation so that individual judicial officers, litigants, and litigants’ attorneys who have developed techniques for litigation management and cost and delay reduction can effectively and promptly communicate those techniques to all participants in the civil justice system.

(5) Evidence suggests that an effective litigation management and cost and delay reduction program should incorporate several interrelated principles, including—

(A) the differential treatment of cases that provides for individualized and specific management according to their needs, complexity, duration, and probable litigation careers;

(B) early involvement of a judicial officer in planning the progress of a case, controlling the discovery process, and scheduling hearings, trials, and other litigation events;

(C) regular communication between a judicial officer and attorneys during the pretrial process; and

[104 Stat. 5090–5112 omitted (23 pages)]

SEC. 309. APPEAL OF CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS RELATING TO BANKRUPTCY CASES.

(a) Abstention Determinations Under Title 11, United States Code.—Section 305(c) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period the following: “by the court of appeals under section 158(d), 1291, or 1292 of this title or by the Supreme Court of the United States under section 1254 of this title”.

(b) Abstention Determinations Under Title 28, United States Code.—The second sentence of section 1334(c)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by inserting “or not to abstain” after “to abstain”, and

(2) by inserting the following before the period: “by the court of appeals under section 158(d), 1291, or 1292 of this title or by the Supreme Court of the United States under section 1254 of this title”.

(c) Remand Determinations Under Title 28, United States Code.—The second sentence of section 1452(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting the following before the period: “by the court of appeals under section 158(d), 1291, or 1292 of this title or by the Supreme Court of the United States under section 1254 of this title”.

SEC. 310. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION.

(a) Grant of Jurisdiction.—Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

“§ 1367. Supplemental jurisdiction

“(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.

“(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

“(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if—

“(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,

“(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,

“(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or

“(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

[104 Stat. 5114–5136 omitted (23 pages)]

tions established by the Register are subject to the approval of the Librarian of Congress.

Approved December 1, 1990.