BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2274|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2274
Author: Lara (D)
Amended: 7/3/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/26/12
AYES: Evans, Harman, Corbett, Leno
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakeslee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 5/21/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Vexatious litigants
SOURCE : Civil Justice Association of California
DIGEST : This bill provides that a court shall dismiss an
action brought by a vexatious litigant when all of the
following are true: (1) the court determines, after
hearing evidence, that the litigation has no merit and has
been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay; (2) the
vexatious litigant is subject to a prefiling order; and (3)
the vexatious litigant was represented by counsel at the
time the litigation was filed and became pro per after
his/her attorney withdrew from the case.
ANALYSIS : Existing law defines "vexatious litigant" to
mean a person who does any of the following:
1. In the immediately preceding seven years, filed, in pro
per, at least five actions, other than in small claims
CONTINUED
AB 2274
Page
2
court, that have been either (a) finally determined
adversely to the person or (b) unjustifiably permitted
to remain pending at least two years without having been
brought to trial or hearing;
2. After a final adverse ruling against the person,
repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in pro
per, either (a) the validity of the final determination
or (b) the actual cause of action against the same
defendant;
3. In any litigation while acting in pro per, repeatedly
files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers,
conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other
tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause
unnecessary delay; and
4. Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant
by a state or federal court in an action based upon the
same or substantially similar facts. (Code of Civil
Procedure (CCP) Section 391)
Existing law provides that a defendant may make a motion
for an order requiring a plaintiff to provide security when
it can be shown that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant
and there is not a reasonable probability that he or she
will prevail in the litigation. (CCP Section 391.1.)
After hearing the evidence upon the motion, if the court
determines that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and
that there is no reasonable probability that he or she will
prevail, the court must order the plaintiff to furnish
security in an amount determined by the court and for the
benefit of the defendant. (CCP Section 391.3.) If that
security is not furnished, the lawsuit shall be dismissed.
(CCP Section 391.4)
Existing law permits the court to enter a prefiling order
which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new
litigation in pro per without first obtaining permission of
the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is to
be filed. Existing law permits the judge to allow the
filing of that litigation only if it appears that the
litigation has merit and has not been filed for the
purposes of harassment or delay. (CCP Section 391.7)
CONTINUED
AB 2274
Page
3
This bill requires a court to dismiss an action brought by
a vexatious litigant who is subject to a prefiling order if
the court determines, after hearing evidence, that the
litigation has no merit and has been filed for the purposes
of harassment or delay. This provision only applies if the
vexatious litigant was represented by counsel at the time
the litigation was filed and became pro per after his/her
attorney withdrew from the case.
This bill permits the defendant to either bring a motion
for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security or
a motion for an order dismissing the action, or both. This
bill requires the defendant to combine all grounds for
relief in one motion.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/3/12)
Civil Justice Association of California (source)
American Council of Engineering Companies
Association of California Insurance Companies
California Association of Bed and Breakfast Inns
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
California Construction and Industrial Materials
Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Framing Contractors Association
California Grocers Association
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Cooperative of American Physicians
Judicial Council of California
League of California Cities
Motion Picture Association of America
National Federation of Independent Business
CONTINUED
AB 2274
Page
4
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes:
The budget for California's judicial branch was reduced
by 30% this past fiscal year, and since 2008 the budget
has been cut by nearly a quarter - $653 million. At the
same time, superior court filings have increased by 20%,
according to the Judicial Council's annual statistics
report. Additionally, in the current fiscal year, trial
court funding was cut by $350 million statewide. At a
time when courts are deeply impacted by these budget
cuts, AB 2274 would limit abusive and frivolous lawsuits
and filings to save valuable resources of both the courts
and the parties. Although there are some provisions on
the books to protect against potentially abusive lawsuits
brought forward by vexatious litigants, unfortunately
there are still some instances in which litigants can use
the court system to pursue frivolous and unwarranted
lawsuits. This costs courts, who are already under
enormous cost pressure, and defendants precious time and
money.
Once a person has been designated a vexatious litigant,
there are certain protections in future lawsuits brought
forward by that person. One of the protections allows a
judge to look closely at what a vexatious litigant files
and approve of the filing. If a vexatious litigant has
an attorney, the litigant is not subject to the
pre-filing order or the scrutiny of the judge in his or
her pleadings because the attorney is subject to the
Rules of Professional Conduct.
A recent Supreme Court case found that the statute as
drafted only requires a vexatious litigant to have an
attorney at the initial filing of a case. AB 2274 would
clear up a loophole that currently exists in which a
vexatious litigant can dismiss the attorney after they
file papers and avoid the closer judicial scrutiny of
their case.
Litigation is expensive and all too often defendants
settle frivolous or warrantless lawsuits simply because
they don't have the resources to fight them in court. AB
2274 will make it clear that a lawsuit from a vexatious
litigant will be subject to stricter scrutiny from a
CONTINUED
AB 2274
Page
5
judge if, at any point, the litigant dismisses their
attorney. Ensuring provisions that will provide this
stricter scrutiny makes it more likely that cases of
merit will be heard in a timelier manner and will protect
the scarce resources of California's courts.
The bill's sponsor, Civil Justice Association of
California, writes, "Ýt]he vexatious litigant statute was
enacted in 1963 in order to curb unwarranted litigation
within California by allowing courts to require a security
bond or approval from the court before the vexatious
litigant could file additional litigation (The California
Vexatious Litigant Statute: A Viable Judicial Tool to Deny
the Clever Obstructionists Access?, 72 S. Cal. L. Rev. 275,
First Western Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1989)
212 Cal.App.3d 860). Excessive and needless lawsuits drive
up business expenses, cost government additional money, and
increase the cost of goods and services for all
Californians. Consumers pay for unjustified lawsuits as
businesses increase their prices to cover legal costs or
shut down. This bill would return the effectiveness of the
statutory protections and clarify that the legislature did
not intend to allow vexatious litigants to so easily game
the system."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 5/21/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman,
Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, V. Manuel Pérez,
Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Charles Calderon, Fletcher, Roger
Hernández, Perea
CONTINUED
AB 2274
Page
6
RJG:m 7/3/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED