BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1403| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1403 Author: Assembly Judiciary Committee Amended: 9/2/11 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 7/5/11 AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-1, 5/19/11 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Civil actions SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill provides that the deadline for acceptance or rejection of the addition or reduction of damages is 30 days from the date the conditional order is served by the clerk of the court, if a deadline is not set forth in the conditional order. This bill provides that failure to respond to the order shall be deemed a rejection of the addition or reduction of damages, and a new trial limited to the issue of damages shall be granted automatically. In addition, a party filing and serving an acceptance of a conditionally ordered addition or reduction of damages must concurrently serve and submit to the court a propose amended judgment reflecting the modified judgment amount, as well as any other uncontested judgment awards. This bill provides that a prevailing party could recover costs for court interpreter fees for a qualified court interpreter, authorized by the court for an indigent person CONTINUED AB 1403 Page 2 as specified, and also makes non-substantive changes to the existing voir dire statute. Senate Floor Amendments of 9/2/11 address concerns with the civil jury trial voir dire process, specifically (1) provide that the trial judge should allow a brief opening statement by counsel for each party prior to the commencement of the oral questioning phase of the voir dire process; (2) prohibit a trial judge from establishing a blanket policy of a time limit for voir dire; (3) prohibit the court from arbitrarily or unreasonably refusing to submit reasonable written questionnaires and will also provide that where a questionnaire is utilized, the parties should be given reasonable time to evaluate the responses to the questionnaires before oral questioning commences; and (4) provide that the judge in civil trials should provide the parties with both the alphabetical list and the list of prospective jurors in the order in which they will be called in order to help facilitate the jury selection process. ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that in any civil action where after trial by jury an order granting a new trial limited to the issue of damages would be proper, the trial court may in its discretion: If the ground for granting a new trial is inadequate damages, make its order granting the new trial subject to the condition that the motion is denied if the party against whom the verdict has been rendered consents to an addition of so much thereto as the court in its independent judgment determines from the evidence to be fair and reasonable. If the ground for granting a new trial is excessive damages, make its order granting the new trial subject to the condition that the motion is denied if the party in whose favor the verdict has been rendered consents to a reduction of so much thereof as the court in its independent judgment determines from the evidence to be fair and reasonable. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 662.5.) This bill amends those provisions to provide that in any CONTINUED AB 1403 Page 3 civil action where after trial by jury an order granting a new trial limited to the issue of damages will be proper, the trial court may in its discretion: If the ground for granting a new trial is inadequate damages, issue a conditional order granting the new trial unless the party against whom the verdict has been rendered consents to the addition of damages in an amount the court in its independent judgment determines from the evidence to be fair and reasonable. If the ground for granting a new trial is excessive damages, issue a conditional order granting the new trial unless the party in whose favor the verdict has been rendered consents to the reduction of so much thereof as the court in its independent judgment determines form the evidence to be fair and reasonable. This bill provides that if a conditional order does not set forth the deadline for acceptance or rejection of the addition or reduction of damages, the deadline is 30 days from the date the conditional order is served by the clerk of the court. In addition, this bill provides that failure to respond to the order as specified shall be deemed a rejection of the addition or reduction of damages and a new trial limited to the issue of damages shall be granted automatically. This bill requires that a party filing and serving an acceptance of a conditionally ordered addition or reduction of damages to concurrently serve and submit to the court a proposed amended judgment reflecting the modified judgment amount, as well as any other uncontested judgment awards. Existing law defines "qualified legal services project" as either: A nonprofit project incorporated and operated exclusively in California that provides as its primary purpose and function free legal services to indigent persons and that has quality control procedures approved by the State Bar. A program operated exclusively in California by a CONTINUED AB 1403 Page 4 nonprofit law school accredited by the State Bar that has: o Operated for at least two years at a cost of at least twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per year as an identifiable law school unit with a primary purpose and function of providing legal services without charge to indigent persons. o Quality control procedures approved by the State Bar. (Business & Profession Code Section 6213(a) Existing law defines "indigent person" as a person whose income is (1) 125 percent or less of the current poverty threshold established by the United States Office of Management and Budget, or (2) who is eligible for Supplemental Security Income or free services under the Older Existing law defines "prevailing party" as the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. When any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the "prevailing party" shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted as specified. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032(a)(4).) Existing law provides that except as otherwise provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recovery costs in any action or proceeding. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032(a)(5).) Existing law enumerates the items allowable as costs under Section 1032, including: Filing, motion, and jury fees. Juror food and lodging, as specified. Taking, video recording, and transcribing necessary CONTINUED AB 1403 Page 5 depositions, as specified. Service of process, as specified. Expenses of attachment including keepers' fees. Premiums on necessary surety bonds. Ordinary witness fees, as specified. Court report fees as established by statute. Models and blowups of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits that may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact. And Any other item that is required to be awarded to the prevailing party pursuant to statute as an incident to prevailing in the action at trial or on appeal. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(a).) This bill adds to the list above court interpreter fees for a qualified court interpreter authorized by the court for an indigent person represented by a qualified legal service project, as specified. Existing law requires a trial judge to examine prospective jurors, and, upon completion of the judge's examination, grants counsel for each party the right to examine, by oral and direct questioning, any prospective juror in order to enable counsel to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Existing law requires the scope of examination conducted by counsel to be within the reasonable limits prescribed by the trial judge and prohibits the imposition of unreasonable or arbitrary time limits on the examination. This bill specifies that this prohibition applies to all cases. This bill provides that the trial judge should allow a brief opening statement by counsel for each party prior to the commencement of the oral questioning phase of the voir dire process. This bill prohibits the trial judge from establishing a blanket policy of a time limit for voir dire, and provides that the parties should be given reasonable time to evaluate the responses to any written questionnaires, if used, before oral questioning commences. This bill also provides that the judge in civil trials should provide the parties with both the alphabetical list and the list of prospective jurors in the order in which they will be called. CONTINUED AB 1403 Page 6 Existing law provides procedures governing the selection of a fair and impartial jury in civil jury trials, among which it provides that specific unreasonable or arbitrary time limits shall not be imposed. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 222.5.) This bill makes a technical, nonsubstantive change to that provision. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 9/2/11) Asian Americans for Civil Rights & Equality California Chamber of Commerce Consumer Attorneys of California Judicial Council Legal Aid Association of California One Justice ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "Ýt]his bill seeks to improve civil procedure by (1) strengthening protections against potential bias among prospective jurors in order to ensure a fair and impartial jury; (2) clarifying the process and deadlines when a court grants a conditional order for a new trial based on reduction of or addition to a jury's award of damages; and (3) expanding access to qualified court interpreters by allowing interpreter costs to be recovered by indigent parties represented by a qualified legal services program approved by the State Bar." The California Chamber of Commerce writes in support of this bill, and specifically, the provisions on new trials based on inadequate or excessive damages that, "AB 1403 provides clarity in this area, and will expedite resolution of legal disputes by establishing a default deadline in the absence of one being set by the judge. . . . By establishing this 30-day deadline to respond, AB 1403 Ýe]nsures that these matters will be dealt with expeditiously and that the opposing party will have time to appeal, if they so choose, once the conditional offer has been accepted or rejected. AB 1403 will create certainty CONTINUED AB 1403 Page 7 and encourage efficiency in this area of civil litigation, saving the courts and litigants valuable time and money." Writing in support of the bill's provision on recovery of costs for court interpreters is the Asian Americans for Civil Rights & Equality, "The US Census American Community Survey, which was released in December 2010, indicates that 19.8 percent (6.5 million) of Californians have a limited proficiency in English. This is an increase of half a million from 2000. . . . Civil courts govern critical issues that affect the well being of Californians, involving areas such as child custody, child support, housing, and consumer protections. For limited English proficient individuals, language assistance is needed so that they can meaningfully access the courts; understand pleadings, forms or other legal documents; communicate with clerks or court staff; and participate in court proceedings. AB 1403 will promote access to the courts by including court interpreter fees for a qualified court interpreter who is authorized by the court for an indigent person represented by a qualified legal services project to the allowable costs under California ÝC]ode of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(a)." ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-1, 5/19/11 AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NOES: Donnelly NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Halderman, Ma, Mansoor CONTINUED AB 1403 Page 8 RJG:do 9/6/11 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED