reclaiming my time , madam speaker , i am pleased to answer the gentleman .  the first factor is whether the claims asserted are of significant national or interstate interest .  under this factor , if a case presents issues of national or interstate significance that argues in favor of the matter being handled in federal court , for example , if a class action alleges a nationally distributed pharmaceutical product caused side effects , those cases presumably should be heard in federal court because of the nationwide ramifications of the dispute and the potential interface with federal drug laws .  under this factor , the federal court should inquire whether the case does present issues of national or interstate significance of this sort .  if such issues are identified , that point favors the exercise of the federal jurisdiction .  the second factor is whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws other than those of the forum state .  the sponsors believe that one of the significant problems posed by multistate class actions in state court is the tendency of some state courts to be less than respectful of the laws of other jurisdictions , applying the law of one state to an entire nationwide controversy and thereby ignoring the distinct and varying state laws that should apply to various claims included in the class , depending upon where they arose .  under this factor , if the federal court determines that multiple state laws will apply to aspects of the class action , the determination would favor having the matter handled in the federal court system , which has a record of being more respectful of the laws of various states in the class action controversy .  conversely , if the court concludes that the laws of the state to which the action was filed will apply to the entire controversy , that factor will favor keeping the case in state court .  the third factor is whether the class action has been pleaded in a manner that seeks to avoid federal jurisdiction .  the purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the plaintiffs have proposed a natural class , a class that encompasses all the people and claims that one would expect to include in a class action , as opposed to proposing a class that appears to be gerrymandered solely to avoid federal jurisdiction by leaving out certain potential class members or claims .  if the federal court concludes that evasive pleading is involved , that factor would favor the exercise of federal jurisdiction .  on the other hand , if the class definition and claims appear to follow a natural pattern , that consideration would favor allowing the matter to be handled by a state court .  the fourth factor is whether there is a distinct nexus between , a , the forum where the action was brought , and , b , the class members , the alleged harm or the defendants .  this factor is intended to take account of a major concern that led to this legislation , the filing of lawsuits in the out-of-the-way magnet state courts that have no real relationship to the controversy at hand .  thus , if a majority of the proposed class action members and the defendants reside in the county where the suit is brought , the court might find a distinct nexus exists .  the key to this factor is the notion of there being a distinct nexus .  if the allegedly injured parties live in many other localities , the nexus is not distinct , and this factor would weigh heavily in favor of the exercise of federal jurisdiction over the matter .  the fifth factor is whether the number of citizens in the forum state in the proposed plaintiff class is substantially larger than the number of citizens from any other state , and the citizens of the other members of the proposed class is dispersed among a substantial number of states .  this factor is intended to look at the geographic distribution of class members in an effort to determine the forum state 's interest in handling the litigation .  if all of the out-of-state class members are widely dispersed among many other states , that point would suggest that the interest of the forum state in litigating the controversy are preeminent .  the sponsors intend that such a conclusion would favor allowing the state court in which the action was originally filed to handle the litigation .  however , if a court finds that the citizenship of the other class members is not widely dispersed , then a federal forum would be more appropriate because several states other than the forum state would have a strong interest in the controversy .  the final factor is whether one or more class actions asserting the same or similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have been filed in the last 3 years .  the purpose of this factor is to determine whether a matter should be subject to federal jurisdiction so that it can be coordinated with other overlapping or parallel class actions .  if the other class actions on the same subject have been or are likely to be filed elsewhere , the sponsors intend that this consideration would strongly favor the exercise of federal jurisdiction .  it is the sponsors ' intention that this factor be broadly interpreted and that plaintiffs not be able to plead around it with creative legal theories .  if a plaintiff brings a product liability suit alleging consumer fraud or unjust enrichment , and another suit was previously brought against some of the same defendants alleging negligence with regard to the same product , this factor would favor the exercise of federal jurisdiction over the later-filed claim .  