BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Martha M. Escutia, Chair
2001-2002 Regular Session
SB 562 S
Senator Morrow B
As Amended April 16, 2001
Hearing Date: April 17, 2001 5
Civil Procedure/Vehicle Codes 6
GWW:cjt 2
SUBJECT
Civil Procedure Law: Limited Civil Cases
DESCRIPTION
This bill would enact various recommendations of the
California Law Revision Commission ("CLRC") to update the
codes to reflect the demise of the municipal courts in
California pursuant to the adoption of trial court
unification by all 58 California counties. In summary, the
bill would:
- Clarify the authority of a court to appoint a
receiver in a pending limited or unlimited civil case.
- Specify that a petition to release a mechanics'
lien where the total amount of a lien is $25,000 or
less, is a limited civil case.
- Specify that where a petition to a court to relieve
a person from the prohibition against suing a public
entity relates to a claim under $25,000, the
proceeding to petition a court would also constitute a
limited civil case.
- Clarify that the existence of a statute relating to
the court's authority in a limited civil case does not
mean that the same authority does or does not apply in
an unlimited case and that, similarly, the existence
of a statute relating to the court's authority in an
(more)
SB 562 (Morrow)
Page 2
unlimited case does not imply the existence or absence
of the same authority in a limited civil case.
- Amend various codes to remove the terms "docket"
and "docket entries" from various codes as an obsolete
term, and substitute the term "register of actions"
where appropriate.
BACKGROUND
Under trial court unification, cases formerly handled by
municipal courts (e.g., cases with an amount in controversy
of under $25,000) are now handled as a "limited civil case"
in the superior courts. This bill is needed to update the
codes to reflect the changeover and to avoid any ambiguity
due to the transition.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law delineates the circumstances in which a
superior court may appoint a receiver in cases "other
than in a limited civil case." (Code of Civil Procedure
Section 564. Henceforth, all references are to this code
unless otherwise noted.) Existing law provides for the
appointment of a receiver in a limited civil case "where
necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party
to a limited civil case. (Code of Civil Procedure Section
86(a)(8).)
This bill would consolidate the two provisions into
Section 564 and permit the appointment of a receiver by
the superior court "in all other cases where necessary to
preserve the property or rights of any party."
2. Existing law provides that actions to enforce and
foreclose mechanics' liens are limited cases where the
total amount of the liens is $25,000 or less.
This bill would also classify, as a limited civil case, a
petition to release a mechanics' lien where the total
amount of a lien is $25,000 or less.
3. Existing law establishes the requisite conditions for an
SB 562 (Morrow)
Page 3
action or proceeding to be treated as a limited civil
case.
This bill would specify that the existence of a statute
relating to the authority of the court in a limited civil
case does not imply that the same authority does or does
not apply in an unlimited case. Correspondingly, it
would also provide that the existence of a statute
relating to the authority of the court in an unlimited
case does not imply the existence or absence of the same
authority in a limited civil case.
4. Existing law provides that upon a public entity's
rejection of a claim against it, the claimant may
petition the court to allow the person to file suit
against the public entity.
This bill would specify that if the proposed claim would
fall within the jurisdiction of a limited civil case, the
proceeding to petition a court for relief to file the
suit would be a limited civil case.
5. This bill would also amend various codes to remove the
terms "docket" and "docket entries" from various codes as
an obsolete term, and substitute the term "register of
actions" where appropriate.
COMMENT
1. Clarifying court's ability to appoint a receiver
A receiver is a court officer or representative appointed
to control and manage property that is the subject of
litigation before the court, to preserve the property,
and to dispose of it according to the court's final
judgment. A receiver may not be appointed except in
cases expressly authorized by statute. (Authority to
Appoint Receivers, 30 Cal. L. Comm'n Reports 291 (2000),
at page 295.)
According to the CLRC, trial court unification has
created an opportunity to simplify the practice and
procedure of appointing receivers "without a significant
change in substance, by consolidating the provisions."
SB 562 (Morrow)
Page 4
(Id., p. 298.)
Thus, CLRC is recommending that the statute on the
appointment of a receiver in an unlimited civil case be
broadened to apply to all cases (limited and unlimited
civil cases), while noting that application of the rule
is necessarily narrowed by the fact that certain cases in
which a receiver may be appointed may only be brought as
an unlimited case. CLRC is also recommending
consolidation of the current limited case provisions in
Section 86(a)(8) into Section 564 by permitting the
appointment of a receiver by the superior court "in all
other cases where necessary to preserve the property or
rights of any party." (Proposed Section 564(b)(9).)
The proposed language ("where necessary to preserve the
property or rights of any party") would replace language
currently authorizing the court to appoint a receiver
"where receivers have heretofore been appointed by the
usages of courts of equity."
CLRC asserts that this language change is not a
significant change and makes the law more readily
understandable. In support of its contention, CLRC cites
cases holding that the old language provided broad
authority to appoint a receiver, but only where other
remedies were found to be inadequate. (See Report, page
306.) Similarly, SB 562 would authorize the appointment
of a receiver in other cases only "where necessary to
preserve the property or rights of any party."
CLRC notes that the general language of subdivision
(a)(9), which starts with "in all other cases," would
not override the specific requirements for the
appointment of a receiver in specified situations
enumerated elsewhere in the statute.
2. Other provisions are technical
Developed by the CLRC, the other provisions of SB 562
would adopt various technical revisions in the California
codes to reflect the recent adoption of trial court
unification in all 58 counties. Whereas the court system
was formerly divided into a municipal court and a
superior court branch, unification has brought both
SB 562 (Morrow)
Page 5
branches under the aegis of the superior court. Cases
that were formerly filed in the municipal court may now
be filed as a "limited civil case" in the superior court.
These proposed changes are considered technical. For
example, trial courts no longer maintain a record
denominated as a "docket" in civil cases. Thus, that
term is being excised for various code provisions in
favor of the current reference - "registry" or "registry
of actions."
Two other provisions merely state specifically that
certain filings (petition to release mechanics' lien,
petition for relief from claims filing requirement of
the Tort Claims Act), are deemed to be limited civil
case filings.
The fourth technical provision, adding Section 89 to the
Code of Civil Procedure, would state that the existence
of a statute specifying the authority of the court in a
limited civil case does not imply that the same authority
does or does not apply in an unlimited case. A similar
rule would also be established for statutes that only
state the court's authority in unlimited cases. This
section is intended as a "catch-all" to negate any
implied limitation on court authority in both limited and
unlimited civil cases.
Support: None Known
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: California Law Revision Commission
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: None Known
**************