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