BILL ANALYSIS
SB 562
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 12, 2001
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Darrell Steinberg, Chair
SB 562 (Morrow) - As Amended: June 7, 2001
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT : CIVIL PROCEDURE: CLASSIFICATION OF CIVIL ACTIONS,
HARMONIZATION OF STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE CODES BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY CERTAIN TRIAL
COURT PROCEDURES AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF CIVIL CASES AS THE
RESULT OF TRIAL COURT UNIFICATION?
SYNOPSIS
This bill, sponsored by the California Law Revision Commission
(CLRC), harmonizes the standard by which courts in limited and
unlimited civil cases may appoint a receiver, and adopts a
non-substantive change in the language describing that standard.
In addition, the bill classifies two types of currently
unclassified civil actions, replaces obsolete terms describing
the record of proceedings in the trial courts, and clarifies the
statutes relating to the authority of a trial court in which a
case is pending to transfer the case to another branch or
location of the court. As noted in the analysis, these
technical changes are occasioned by unification of the municipal
and superior courts into one trial court in all 58 counties.
SUMMARY : Enacts recommendations of the CLRC to clarify
provisions of the codes regarding classification of civil cases
and court procedures as needed to reflect unification of the
trial courts. Specifically, this bill :
1)Conforms the standards by which courts may appoint a receiver
in limited and unlimited civil cases and updates the
description of that standard.
2)Specifies that a petition to release a mechanic's lien in a
limited civil case is itself a limited civil case.
3)Specifies that where an action in tort against a public entity
would be classified as a limited civil case, a petition for
relief from the pre-filing presentment requirement of that
SB 562
Page 2
claim is also classified as a limited civil case.
4)Amends the codes, where appropriate, to replace obsolete
references to the terms "docket" and "docket entries" with the
current term "register of actions."
5)States that where a statute expressly speaks to the authority
of a court to transfer either a limited or unlimited civil
case, the restriction of the statute to one classification of
cases does not, by itself, imply that the same authority is
lacking with regard to the other classification.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Describes 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. All further
references are to this code unless otherwise noted.) Existing
law likewise provides for the appointment of a receiver in a
limited civil case "where necessary to preserve the property
or rights of any party." (Section 86(a)(8).)
2)Provides that actions to enforce and foreclose mechanics'
liens are limited cases where the total amount of the lien is
$25,000 or less. (Section 86(a)(6).)
3)Provides that, upon a public entity's rejection of a tort
claim against it on the grounds that it was filed late, the
claimant may petition the court for relief from the
requirement that the claim first be presented to the public
entity before filing suit. (Government Code section 946.6.)
4)Describes the record of proceedings in municipal courts and
justice courts as a "docket," (e.g., Section 396a(b); Section
398), and describes the record of proceedings in superior
courts as a "register of actions." (E.g., Government Code
section 69845.)
5)Permits a court to transfer a pending limited case to another
branch or location of the court (e.g., Section 402.5), and
permits transfer of an unlimited civil case. (E.g., Section
116.620.)
SB 562
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by the California Law Revision
Commission, is intended to make certain technical,
non-substantive changes to the codes relating to trial court
procedure to reflect the unification of the trial court and the
consequent disappearance of the municipal courts in every
county. These revisions make uniform certain standards,
procedures and nomenclature regarding limited and unlimited
cases, and classify some previously unclassified civil actions.
Appointment of Receivers : The appointment of a receiver by a
court is an equitable remedy during litigation or after judgment
when necessary to preserve the rights of a party or to preserve
property that is the subject of the litigation. A receiver is a
court officer or representative appointed to control and manage,
preserve and/or to dispose of property according to the court's
final judgment. A receiver may not be appointed except where
expressly authorized by statute. ( See Authority to Appoint
Receivers, 30 Cal. L. Comm'n Reports 291 (2000), at 295.)
CLRC recommends that the statute on appointment of a receiver in
an unlimited civil case be extended to limited cases, and that
this statute be amended to rephrase the general circumstances
under which a court may exercise its discretion to appoint a
receiver. The provision governing appointment of a receiver in
an unlimited civil case currently states that the court may
appoint a receiver "where receivers have heretofore been
appointed by the usages of courts of equity." (Section
564(b)(8).) The language proposed to rephrase the standard is
borrowed from the more modern section Section 86(a)(8). It
permits the appointment of a receiver "in all other cases where
necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party."
(Proposed Section 564(b)(9).)
The CLRC explains that this language change is not intended to
be substantive, but to make the standard more understandable.
In order to rebut any contention that this change could be
construed as substantive, the CLRC states in its Comment
following the proposed revision that this change is not intended
to accomplish a substantive change. (California Law Revision
Commission, Staff Memorandum, June 6, 2001, Revised Comment to
Code of Civil Procedure Section 564.)
SB 562
Page 4
Further Technical Changes . Existing code provisions specify
that an action to enforce and foreclose a mechanic's lien of
$25,000 or less is a limited civil case, and prescribe a
procedure for obtaining the release of a mechanic's lien.
However, no provision specifies whether a release petition is a
limited civil case. (Civil Procedure: Technical Corrections,
30 Cal. L. Comm'n Reports 479 (2000), at 484.) Thus, the bill
amends Section 86(a)(6) to state that where the amount of the
lien is $25,000 or less, a proceeding to release a mechanic's
lien is a limited civil case. This parallels the treatment of
an action to enforce or foreclose a mechanic's lien.
Likewise, the bill classifies petitions for relief from
presentment of tort claims. Persons who wish to file a tort
claim against a public entity must first present their claim to
the public entity before filing suit. A claimant may petition
the court for relief from this presentment requirement. But
existing law does not directly state whether a proceeding for
relief from the claim-filing requirement is a limited civil case
or an unlimited civil case. The proposed change therefore
states that a petition for relief from the presentment
requirement is classified as a limited civil case "where an
action on the cause of action to which the claim relates would
be a limited civil case." Similarly, the proposed amendment
also clarifies that the proper court is a superior court that
would be a proper court for trial of the action to which the
claim relates.
The term "docket" in reference to the record kept by a trial
court in a civil case is obsolete as the result of unification.
The term "docket" was used by municipal courts and justice
courts, which no longer exist, while superior courts call the
record of proceedings in civil cases a "register of actions."
Thus, this bill amends various provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the Vehicle Code and other codes to delete obsolete
references to a "docket" in a civil case, and replace those
references with the term "register of actions" where
appropriate.
Finally, the CLRC notes that some statutes expressly relate to
court authority to transfer either a limited civil case or an
unlimited civil case to another branch or location of that
court. While these separate statutes had relevance when the
municipal and superior courts were separate, they may now cause
confusion. In order to avoid unduly limited construction of
SB 562
Page 5
such statutes, this bill states that the existence of a statute
specifying the authority of the court in one class of cases does
not, by itself, imply that the same authority does or does not
apply in the other class of cases.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Law Revision Commission (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334