Header graphic for print
CAFA Law Blog Information, cases and insights regarding the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

To Dr. Zhivago’s Displeasure, LARA is no CAFA!

Posted in Legal Publications and Articles

Matthew Vansuch, Icing the Judicial Hellholes: Congress’ Attempt to Put OuDr. Zhivagot “Frivolous” Lawsuits Burns a Hole Through the Constitution, 30 Seton Hall Legis. J. 249 (2006).

Unfortunately, Dr. Zhivago’s love for Lara Antipova did not convince Congress to pass a bill grouping LARA, a/k/a Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, with our favorite topic, CAFA. However, for an interesting read (if you like 3 1/2 hour films about the life of a Russian doctor/poet who, although married, falls for a political activist’s wife and experiences hardships during the Bolshevik Revolution, you’ll enjoy this work) see this article by Mr. Vansuch. While the article does not analyze CAFA, it does dedicate a footnote (lucky 13 to be exact) to why LARA should be more like CAFA if it wants to be passed.

I suspect the Congressional hearing went much like the memorable line from Dr. Zhivago:

LARA: Wouldn’t it have been lovely if I had been like CAFA.

Senator Zhivago: Before you were.

LARA: I would have passed the House and Senate. If I were like CAFA.

Senator Zhivago: I think you may go mad if you think about all that.

LARA: I shall always think about it.


Original quote courtesy of www.imbd.com:

Lara: Wouldn’t it have been lovely if we’d met before?

Zhivago: Before we did? Yes.

Lara: We’d have got married, had a house and children. If we’d had children, Yuri, would you like a boy or girl?

Zhivago: I think we may go mad if we think about all that.

Lara: I shall always think about it.

  • I think it can be said that reading any number of law review articles is like watching 3.5 hours of Dr. Zhivago.
    Anyway, I wanted to clarify the last sentence in paragraph 1. My point in footnote 13 about the correlation between CAFA and LARA was that, for constitutionality purposes, CAFA is more likely to be considered part of a “broad regulatory scheme,” and thus constitutional under the commerce clause, while LARA was not. For LARA to be like CAFA, I believe that it would have to encompass aspects of personal injury litigation other than just applying Federal Rule 11 and federal venue provisions to state court actions to be considered anything close to a “broad regulatory scheme.”
    But thanks for reading the article!