BILL ANALYSIS Ó Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair SB 384 (Evans) Hearing Date: 05/26/2011 Amended: 05/10/2011 Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Judiciary 5-0 _________________________________________________________________ ____ BILL SUMMARY: SB 384 would require the payment of a single complex case fee on behalf of all plaintiffs, as specified. This bill would also authorize until January 1, 2015, a party to move 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, an affirmative defense, or an issue of duty, according to specified procedures. _________________________________________________________________ ____ Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund Loss of complex case Unknown; potential fee revenue lossGeneral* fee revenue of $95 per 10 complex cases Summary of judgement Minor, if any, costs to the courtsGeneral* motions *Trial Court Trust Fund _________________________________________________________________ ____ STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. Existing law generally requires a $550 fee to be paid by each party to a civil action at the time of filing its first paper if the case is designated as a complex case or whenever the case is determined by the court to be a complex case. Existing law imposes a limitation of $10,000 on the total amount of fees collected from all plaintiffs, and the same limitation on the total amount of fees collected from all defendants, respondents, and adverse parties appearing in a complex case. This bill would require the payment of a single complex case fee on behalf of all plaintiffs, whether filing separately or jointly. The Judicial Council issued a memorandum in January 2004 to all presiding judges and executive officers of the superior courts to clarify existing law relating to the assessment of complex case fees. That memorandum stated: "Each plaintiff or group of plaintiffs appearing together pays a SB 384 (Evans) Page 3 single complex fee. Thus, only one fee should be collected from plaintiffs appearing together, regardless of the number of plaintiffs in the action. Only if plaintiffs file separate first appearances in a case (which does not occur in most cases) must each pay a separate complex fee." Despite the memorandum, the Judicial Council has indicated a small number of judges have imposed multiple complex fees on groups of plaintiffs appearing together. This bill further removes the existing authority to collect multiple complex fees for plaintiffs filing separately, and removes the existing statute specifying the limitation of $10,000 on the total amount of fees that can be collected from all plaintiffs, and the fair apportionment among the plaintiffs for any fees collected in excess of the limit. Based on data through March 2011, over $2.1 million in complex case fee revenue had been collected statewide in 2010-11. The Judicial Council indicates there are a small number of judges who are currently charging more than one complex case fee per plaintiff, however, the amount of fees attributable to those specific judges is unknown. Judicial Council indicates due to the manner in which data is aggregated, it is unknown how much of the collected complex case fees are due to over-charging. Even if only specific to a few judges, the potential loss of fee revenue would be dependent on the number of complex cases handled by those specific judges. For a single complex case, additional fee revenue of $9,450 may be collected under existing law ($10,000 maximum - $550 single fee = $9,450). For every ten complex cases, up to $94,500 in reduced fee revenue could result. If five to ten percent of collected fees are due to multiple complex case fee charges, the loss of revenue would be approximately $100,000 to $200,000 annually, potentially more, as the $2.1 million in collected fees did not represent a full year of fee revenues collected. Existing law permits a party to 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. Under current law, a motion for summary adjudication is only granted if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of SB 384 (Evans) Page 4 duty. This bill would, until January 1, 2015, authorize a motion for summary adjudication that does not completely dispose of a cause of action if all parties agree to summary adjudication, and the court determines that the motion will further increase judicial economy by reducing the time required for trial or significantly increasing the ability of parties to settle the case. The bill would enact related procedures for the filing of the said motion. The Judicial Council indicates that issues will arise, typically legal rather than factual in nature, whose resolution would actually contribute to judicial economy. Although the bill allows for an increased number of summary judgment motions, these new motions may only be filed upon stipulation of the parties and a prior determination of the court that the motion will further the interests of judicial economy by reducing the time to be consumed at trial or significantly increasing the ability of the parties to resolve the case by settlement. To the extent the court does not concur that the motion will enhance judicial economy, it will not permit the motion to be filed. By providing for this exception, the Judicial Council indicates the costs to be minor, if any, for courts to implement this procedure. Prior Legislation. AB 2961 (Wayne) 2002 sought to enact the identical summary of adjudication procedures proposed in this measure. AB 2961 was keyed non-fiscal and passed out of the Assembly but was not taken up on the Senate Floor.