BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2485|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2485
Author: Feuer (D)
Amended: 6/21/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-1, 6/29/10
AYES: Corbett, Hancock, Leno
NOES: Harman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-27, 5/24/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Courts: civil actions
SOURCE : California Defense Counsel
Consumer Attorneys of California
DIGEST : This bill extends the sunset to July 1, 2017 for
provisions regulating actions filed in superior court by a
common interest development association against a builder,
developer, or general contractor for design or construction
defects. This bill also increases the court application
fee for out of state attorneys appearing in California
superior courts from $250 to $500. This bill would
designate $250 of these fees to be deposited in the Trial
Court Trust Fund.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides pre-litigation dispute
resolution processes and procedures for construction or
design defects claims made by a common interest development
CONTINUED
AB 2485
Page
2
(CID) association against a builder, developer, or general
contractor of a CID. (Civ. Code Sec. 1375.)
Existing law sunsets these provisions on July 1, 2017.
(Civ. Code Sec. 1375(s).)
Existing law, until July 1, 2010, provides that, if parties
to a construction or design defect claim fail to resolve
the dispute, the CID association can file, as specified, an
action in the superior court against a builder, developer,
or general contractor. (Civ. Code Sec. 1375.05.)
This bill extends this sunset on Civil Code Section 1375.05
to July 1, 2017.
Existing law provides that out of state attorneys can
appear pro hac vice (without being licensed in California)
in California superior courts upon the satisfaction of
specified requirements. (Rules of Ct. Sec. 9.40.)
Existing law provides that the fee payable to the State Bar
for filing a pro hac vice application is $50. (Rules of
Ct. Sec. 940.)
Existing law provides that the fee payable to the filing
court for filing a pro hac vice application is $250; the
entirety of this fee is deposited in the Immediate and
Critical Needs Account of the State Court Facilities
Construction Fund. (Gov. Code Sec. 70617(e).)
Existing law provides that funds collected in the Immediate
and Critical Needs Account of the State Court Facilities
Construction Fund are used for the planning, design,
construction, rehabilitation, renovation, replacement, or
acquisition of courts facilities, repayment loans made from
lease-revenue bonds for the purpose of leasing court
facilities, and payment of lease contracts for court
facilities. (Gov. Code Sec. 70371.5.)
Existing law provides that funds collected in the Trial
Court Trust Fund are used to pay for trial court
operations. (Gov. Code Sec. 68085.)
This bill increases the court application fee for an
AB 2485
Page
3
application to appear pro hac vice in the superior court to
$500.
This bill provides that $250 of the pro hac vice
application fee would be distributed into the Immediate and
Critical Needs Account of the State Court Facilities
Construction Fund, and $250 of this fee would be deposited
into the Trial Court Trust Fund.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/1/10)
California Defense Counsel (co-source)
Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office:
This bill is designed to increase financial support
for the courts during a period of unprecedented cuts
and threats of further reductions to the court budget,
while simultaneously limiting the burden on the courts
in civil matters so that they can operate [as]
productively and efficiently as possible.
This bill increases the fee paid by non-California
lawyers who seek the privilege of being temporarily
admitted to practice for the purpose of a particular
case from $250.00 to $500.00, with the funds going for
the support of the courts.
This bill also extends by 7 years the sunset on the
construction defect litigation rules so that they are
continued in effect until 2017, identically to the
comparable sunset period for the related
pre-litigation dispute resolution procedure.
California Defense Counsel states, "AB 2485 makes a narrow
change to the Government Code to increase fees charged for
pro hac vice appearances (appearances by out-of-state
counsel) from $250 to $500. This Government Code fee is
statutorily directed to the court's critical needs account,
so important in these days of shortages in court funding.
AB 2485
Page
4
We are advised that pro hac vice fees in many states have
been increased in recent years. It is not unreasonable
that lawyers in other states, offered the privilege of
temporarily practicing law in California pursuant to their
out-of-state licenses, help defray expenses in our courts.
Should consensus items be identified, AB 2485 might be an
appropriate vehicle to make changes; of course, in that
case, the Committee will be asked to re-evaluate the bill
if it changes. AB 2485 is a small piece of an absolutely
critical discussion of court funding."
Consumer Attorneys of California state, "Beyond its
existing language, this bill is also intended as a vehicle
for discussions on additional ways to increase efficiencies
in the civil courts. We have been involved in discussions
with the bench and bar on how civil courts can be run in
the most effective way possible, saving time and costs for
all involved. We hope that as this bill moves through the
process it can be amended to add civil efficiency measures
that reflect best practices from around the state. At a
time when the courts are struggling with horrendous budget
cuts and struggling to provide the most basic level of
services, it is crucial to make sure that they operate at
maximum efficiency."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De
Leon, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani,
Hayashi, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Emmerson, Fletcher,
Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey,
Jeffries, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen,
Norby, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Evans, Hall, Hernandez, Knight,
Nava, Saldana, Villines
AB 2485
Page
5
RJG:nl 7/1/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****