Part I of this Note discusses the original rationale for the mass action
provisions, as well as their statutory mechanics. It also provides an account of
how the “proposal for joint trial” language has been interpreted since its
passage, with a focus on how plaintiffs have—or have not—been successful in
avoiding removal jurisdiction under CAFA. Part II argues that the proposal
requirement is subject to manipulation. It highlights the reality that settlement,
rather than trial, is often the objective in civil litigation and explains how
modern alternatives to the class action can achieve this goal without proposing a
joint trial. Part III addresses the implications of these issues, attempting to
determine what role the mass action provisions will play in the future litigation
of mass disputes.