追加選定當事人制度之研究—以美國法上多地區訴訟制度為中心

A Study of the Joining-Into Representative Party System: Focus on MDL in America

蔡幸紋(Shing-Wen Tsai)

指導教授 ： 沈冠伶

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201602718

摘要

攸關多數被害人權利實現之現代型紛爭事件，其特徵在於其所生之損害具有繼續性、顯微性與擴散性，如產品責任事件中，部分欠缺可合理期待安全性之產品可能在市場上流通數年，或損害的潛伏期綿延數年之久，許多消費者並不知悉自己已長期接觸具有潛在生命、身體、健康危險性之商品，使得潛在的原告人數並不確定，並可能隨著時間的推進而逐漸增加訴訟人數；或因金額微小而欠缺受害意識或請求之誘因；或因受害人數眾多，以致於多數人欲使用法院解決紛爭時，過於耗費勞力、時間、費用。對此，民事訴訟法第44條之2追加選定當事人制度，即係著眼於現代型紛爭事件之特性、需求，係以保護包含程序利益在內之法律上利益與擴散利益為目的，以擴充選定當事人制度之利用可能性，使實體法上權利歸屬主體有更多機會委由他人為其成為當事人，經其遂行訴訟已受程序保障及平等使用訴訟制度之機會。

美國法上多地區訴訟制度係於1968年立法完成，並依法設置了多地區訴訟司法委員會，賦予該委員會得將具有共同事實上爭點之數訴訟，移送至單一聯邦法院法官，以進行協調及統合之預審程序，避免或減少重複之事證開示程序，或衝突之事證開示結果。多地區訴訟司法委員會之裁量權限，包含為訴訟移送決定，以及選擇適當之受移送法院及法官。於訴訟移送後，對於具有共同事實上爭點之數訴訟，如何為訴訟管理，受移送法院法官有廣泛的裁量權限以形成預審程序之內容，並以自身處理多數當事人訴訟之經驗，監督數訴訟間事證開示程序之進行，鼓勵律師間之合作，採用示範審判帶來數當事人間為全面性和解之效益。在法院對集團訴訟要件審查從嚴認定之趨勢下，以多地區訴訟制度統合處理分別起訴之數訴訟，已逐漸受到廣泛地利用，成為當事人實現其權利之另一途徑。

我國民事訴訟法第44條之2之追加選定當事人制度，係要求受訴法院應更積極地對於同一原因事實而受害之多數共同利益人，賦予相當之機會，俾其得利用選定形式當事人之方式，使自己成為進行中訴訟之實質當事人，而得及時參與訴訟程序，以防免自行起訴時因舉證活動之勞費付出所可能蒙受之程序上不利益，而平衡追求實體利益，即如損害金額微小，欠缺起訴之誘因而終致遭腐蝕之實體利益。惟司法實務上利用追加選定當事人制度之事件不多，究竟本制度之法理基礎與立法目的為何，是否發揮立法者所預設之制度機能，均值得探討；對本於同一原因事實之數訴訟如何為統合處理及訴訟管理，得否自美國法上多地區訴訟制度，充實我國追加選定當事人之程序規定；又追加選定當事人制度之利用，與我國法上同為因應現代型紛爭事件所設計之其他制度，應如何搭配運用等。本論文以美國法上多地區訴訟制度為出發，對本於同一原因事實之數訴訟，應如何活用追加選定當事人制度以一道程序解決，提出分析。

關鍵字

程序選擇權 ； 公告曉示 ； 選定當事人 ； 追加選定當事人 ； 訴之合併

並列摘要

The fact is that modern disputes today, such as public nuisance, traffic accident, product defect and other incidents which may hurt the interests of the public, are often lasting, obscure and expansive in nature. For instance, product liability litigation presents its own challenges. In some cases, the product exposure can occur over years and produce latent injury. Some individuals may not be aware that they have been exposed to a potentially injurious product, and some may not yet have been exposed but will be in the future. Besides, there may be an evolving and uncertain group of potential claimants and potential defendants. As a matter of fact, when multiple persons are injured and the injury is of minor degree, the injured may not be aware of the injury. When multiple parties litigate, the resources such as the labor, time and expenses that parties may be required to invest during the litigation process shall also be taken into consideration. Therefore, the joining-into representative party system is added to Article 44-2 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedural. The characteristic of this system is the protection of parties’ procedural interests and collective interests in modern disputes. The strength of Taiwan’s joining-into representative party system is that multiple parties, whose common interests had arisen from the same public nuisance, traffic accident, product defect, or the same transaction or occurrence of any kind, were allowed to appoint one or more persons among themselves in accordance with the provision of Article 41 to sue for the same category of legal claims. Multiple parties have the opportunity not only to protect their procedural interests efficiently but also make use of the litigation system equally.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation originated with the adoption of the multidistrict venue statute, 28 U.S.C.A. 1407, in 1968. The statute authorizes the Panel to determine whether civil actions pending in more than one district which involve one or more common questions of fact should be transferred to a single district court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before a single judge and, if so, which judicial district and judge should handle the cases. Therefore, the possibility for conflict and duplication in discovery and other pretrial procedures in related cases can be avoided or minimized by such centralized management. According to the MDL Panel itself, the job of the Panel is to (1) determine whether civil actions pending in different federal districts involve one or more common questions of fact such that the actions should be transferred to one federal district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings; and (2) select the judge or judges and court assigned to conduct such proceedings. The extent of coordination or consolidation of the pretrial proceedings is a matter determined solely by the transferee judge with the experience of complex cases. The transferee court’s authority has been described as broad, and it necessarily encompasses the management of cases, tight supervision of discovery, collaboration among lawyers, and promotion of global settlement that often emerge from bellwether trials. Federal courts have adopted new standards and made class actions more difficult for plaintiffs to bring, the MDL process embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is emerging as the primary vehicle for the resolution of complex civil cases.

The joining-into representative parties system in Article 44-2 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure, which regulated that when multiple parties, whose common interests had arisen from the same public nuisance, traffic accident, product defect, or the same transaction or occurrence of any kind, were allowed to appoint one or more persons among themselves in accordance with the provision of Article 41 to sue for the same category of legal claims. The court provides parties with the information necessary for their dispute resolution with a public notice that parties may determine whether to resolve the dispute through the representative party or a joinder and take their self-interests into account by deciding whether to make use of this option as provided. Since the joining-into representative party system has been enforced for more than ten years, there have been comparatively few cases taking advantage of this system in Taiwan’s judicial practice. Therefore, the future development of the system still requires further observation. This study aims at introducing the characteristics of MDL in America and the content of the joining-into representative parties system in Taiwan. Furthermore, this study focuses on how the courts exercise and practice both systems, which one of the common issues of the disputes that have been individually brought to the court by other parties with common interests and that have been pending before courts under different jurisdictions.

並列關鍵字

rights of procedure option ； a public notice ； representative party ； joining-into representative party ； consolidation of actions

參考文獻

林呈樵（2005）。《合併辯論之研究》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，台北。

許士宦（2005）。〈民事訴訟法上之適時審判請求權〉，《國立台灣大學法學叢刊》，34 卷 5 期，頁 56-57。

Sherman E. F. (2008). The MDL Model for Resolving Complex Litigation if a Class Action is Not Possible. Tulane Law Review 82, 2205-2223.

Herr, D. F. (2013). Multidistrict Litigation Manual: Practice Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, St. Paul, MN: Thomson West.

Silver C. & Miller G. (2010). The Quasi-Class Action Method of Managing Multi-District Litigation: Problems and a Proposal. Vanderbilt Law Review 63, 107-177.