madam speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding to me , and i will be pleased to provide two examples .  suppose that a california state court class action were filed against a california pharmaceutical drug company on behalf of a proposed class of 60 percent california residents and 40 percent nevada residents alleging harmful side effects attributed to a drug sold nationwide .  in such a case , it would make sense to leave the matter in federal court .  after all , the state laws that would apply in all of these cases would vary , depending on where the drug was prescribed and purchased .  as a result , allowing a single federal court to sort out such issues and handle the balance of the litigation would make sense both from added efficiency and a federalism standpoint .  now , suppose , in a second example , a checking account fee disclosure class action were filed in a nevada state court against a nevada bank located in a border city , and the class consisted of 65 percent nevada residents and 35 percent california residents who crossed the border in order to conduct transactions in the nevada bank .  in this hypothetical , it might make sense to allow that matter to proceed in state court .  it is likely that nevada banking law would apply to all of these claims , even those of the california residents , since all of the transactions occurred in the state of nevada .  there is also less likelihood that multiple actions will be filed around the country on the same subject so as to give rise to a coordinating federal multidistrict litigation proceeding .  