BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 384|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  SB 384
          Author:   Evans (D)
          Amended:  5/10/11
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  :  5-0, 05/03/11
          AYES:  Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  9-0, 05/26/11
          AYES:  Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley, 
            Price, Runner, Steinberg


           SUBJECT  :    Civil actions

           SOURCE  :     Consumer Attorneys of California
                      California Defense Counsel


           DIGEST  :    This bill, until January 1, 2015, allows a 
          motion for summary adjudication of a legal issue or claim 
          for damages (other than punitive damages) that does not 
          completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative 
          defense, or an issue of duty, upon the stipulation of the 
          parties and a prior determination by the court that the 
          motion will further the interests of judicial economy by 
          reducing the time required for trial or significantly 
          increasing the ability of the parties to settle. The bill 
          would also set forth procedures for filing of the 
          stipulation.  This bill clarifies that existing law 
          requires the payment of a single complex case fee on behalf 
          of all plaintiffs, as specified, and make other conforming 
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 384
                                                                Page 
          2

          changes.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law provides that, in addition to the 
          first appearance fee, a complex case fee shall be paid to 
          the clerk at the time of the filing of 
          the first paper if the case is designated as complex 
          pursuant to the California Rules of Court.  However, the 
          total complex fees collected from all plaintiffs appearing 
          in a complex case shall not exceed $10,000.  (Gov. Code 
          Sec. 70616(a).)

          Existing law provides that, in addition to the first 
          appearance fee, a complex case fee shall be paid on behalf 
          of each defendant, intervenor, respondent, or adverse 
          party, whether filing separately or jointly, at the time 
          that party files its first paper in a case if the case is 
          designated or counterdesignated as complex pursuant to the 
          California Rules of Court.  That additional complex fee 
          shall be charged to each defendant, intervenor, respondent, 
          or adverse party appearing in the case, but the total 
          complex fees collected for all of those parties shall not 
          exceed $10,000.  (Gov. Code Sec. 70616(b).)

          This bill requires the payment of a single complex case fee 
          on behalf of all plaintiffs, as specified, and would make 
          other conforming changes. 

          This bill provides that the above changes do not constitute 
          a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.

          Existing law provides that a party may move for summary 
          adjudication in any action or proceeding if it is contended 
          that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to 
          the action or proceeding.  (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(f).)
           
          Existing law provides that a motion for summary 
          adjudication shall be granted only if it completely 
          disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a 
          claim for damages, or an issue of duty. (Code Civ. Proc. 
          Sec. 437c(f).)

          This bill authorizes a motion for summary adjudication of a 
          legal issue or a claim of damages other than punitive 
          damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 384
                                                                Page 
          3

          action, an affirmative defense, or an issue of duty, if 
          brought upon stipulation of all the parties whose claims or 
          defenses are put at issue by the motion, and if the court 
          determines that the motion will further interests of 
          judicial economy, as specified.

          The bill enacts related procedures for the filing of the 
          motion.

          This bill contains provisions from both the plaintiffs and 
          defense bar relating to court efficiency.  This provision, 
          sponsored by the California Defense Counsel, seeks to 
          permit a motion for summary adjudication of a legal issue 
          or a claim for damages (other than punitive damages) that 
          does not completely dispose of a cause of action, 
          affirmative defense, or an issue of duty.  That motion may 
          only be brought upon stipulation by all parties whose 
          claims or defenses are put at issue by a motion, and where 
          the court has previously determined that the motion will 
          further interests of judicial economy.  This provision is 
          identical to AB 2961 (Wayne, 2002), prior to amendments to 
          strip the bill down to intent language.

           Background
           
          This bill seeks to enact provisions on behalf of both the 
          plaintiffs and defense bar related to court efficiency.  

          The first provision, on behalf of the California Defense 
          Counsel, seeks to enact summary adjudication procedures 
          that are identical to those proposed by AB 2961 (Wayne, 
          2002).  That bill sought to allow parties to move for the 
          summary adjudication of an issue that does not completely 
          dispose of the cause of action, affirmative defense, or 
          issue of duty.  AB 2961 required that all parties whose 
          claims or defenses would be put at issue by the motion 
          agree to summary adjudication, and specified that the court 
          must determine that the motion will further increase 
          judicial economy.  This bill enacts the summary 
          adjudication procedures contained in AB 2961; that bill was 
          not taken up on the Senate Floor in 2002.

          The second provision, on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys 
          of California, seeks to address issues relating to complex 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 384
                                                                Page 
          4

          case fees.  As background, the Judicial Council sent a 
          memorandum in 2004 to all presiding judges and executive 
          officers of the superior courts to clarify existing law 
          relating to complex case fees.  That memorandum noted that, 
          as applied to plaintiffs, each plaintiff or group of 
          plaintiffs appearing together must pay a single complex 
          fee.  Despite that memorandum, some courts have imposed 
          multiple complex fees on plaintiffs in the above 
          circumstance.  The second proposal, would clarify that only 
          a single complex filing fee is required on behalf of all 
          plaintiffs, whether filing separately or jointly.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes   
          Local:  No

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

                          Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions                2011-12     2012-13    
           2013-14   Fund  
          Loss of complex case                              Unknown; 
          potential fee revenue loss                        General*
            fee revenue            of $100 to $200 annually
          Summary of judgement                              Minor, if 
          any, costs to the courts                          General*
            motions

          *Trial Court Trust Fund

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  5/26/11)

          Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source)
          California Defense Counsel (co-source) 

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author's office, 
          this compromise court efficiency bill seeks to enact 
          provisions mutually agreed upon by both the plaintiff and 
          defense bar.  The bill currently contains one provision 
          from the Consumer Attorneys of California to clarify the 
          complex case fee that must be paid by plaintiffs, and one 
          provision from the California Defense Counsel to provide 
          for the summary adjudication of a legal issue or claim if 
          all parties and the court consent.

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 384
                                                                Page 
          5



          RJG:nl  5/27/11   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****






































                                                           CONTINUED