BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1403
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1403 (Judiciary Committee)
As Amended September 2, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |73-1 |(May 19, 2011) |SENATE: |38-0 |(September 8, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Makes various reforms to improve civil procedure.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Clarifies and reforms the process for eliminating potential
bias or other unsuitability among prospective jurors to
improve jury selection and increase court efficiency.
2)Provides that the deadline for acceptance or rejection of the
addition or reduction of damages after a jury award is 30 days
from the date the conditional order is issued, if a deadline
is not set forth in the conditional order. The bill also
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, the bill requires a party serving
an acceptance of a conditionally ordered addition or reduction
of damages to prepare an amended judgment reflecting the
modified judgment amount, as well as any other uncontested
judgment awards.
3)Provides that an indigent party who is represented by a
qualified nonprofit legal aid organization may recover for
court interpreter fees incurred as part of the currently
authorized costs allowed for prevailing parties.
The Senate amendments provide greater specificity regarding the
provision to improve voir dire examination, and add a provision
permitting parties who have been certified by the court as
indigent and who are represented by a qualified nonprofit
organization to recover necessary court interpreter costs when
authorized by a court as an element of court costs.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
AB 1403
Page 2
to the version approved by the Senate except as noted.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill unites the California Chamber of Commerce
and the Consumer Attorneys of California in the cause of civil
procedure reform regarding jury trials.
The California Chamber of Commerce argues that the bill provides
clarity in the Code of Civil Procedure as it relates to an order
granting a new trial based on inadequate or excessive damages:
"Under current law, judges are not required to establish a
deadline for parties to respond to a conditional order for a new
trial. This is the situation when a party to civil litigation
moves for a new trial because it feels the jury has returned an
inadequate or excessive damage award. A judge may grant the
order, but condition it upon acceptance of a modified award.
Under current law, if the judge does not voluntarily include a
deadline for a response in the conditional order, one party can
unnecessarily delay resolution of a dispute and/or the
commencement of a new trial. 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. Specifically, Section 2 of the bill proposes to
amend the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 662.5, to establish a
default deadline of 30 days for a party to respond to a
conditional order for a new trial, should the judge fail to set
a deadline in the order. In addition, the section would make
clear that a failure to respond by the deadline will be deemed a
rejection of the offer, triggering a new trial on the issue of
damages. By establishing a 30-day deadline to respond, AB 1403
insures 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."
The Consumer Attorneys of California also supports the bill,
emphasizing the need to improve the process for examination of
prospective jurors: "AB 1403 would address the issue of
unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions on attorney voir dire of
potential members of a jury. We join with our colleagues in the
defense bar in the belief that liberal and probing voir dire is
necessary to ensure that the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial
is meaningful. Based upon an informal survey of our statewide
membership, it is estimated that at least one-third of the trial
AB 1403
Page 3
courts impose what are considered to be unreasonable limitations
on attorney-conducted voir dire. At the time of its passage,
the law was intended to prohibit these limitations, but its
enforcement has eroded over time, and it is now time for the
statute to be updated and modernized. Our members have reported
some "local, local rules" where there are arbitrary limits of 30
minutes for voir dire in unlimited civil jurisdiction cases.
This goes directly contrary to the original intent of the
statute. Some other individual judges are denying jury
questionnaires, "rehabilitating" jurors who have already flatly
stated they cannot be impartial, and slowing down voir dire by
failing to provide a list of prospective jurors in the order
they will be called."
Finally, the bill would facilitate the provision of court
interpreters when they are determined to be necessary by
allowing indigent parties to recover the cost of court
interpreters when they are the prevailing party and are
represented without charge by a qualified nonprofit legal
services organization.
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0002829