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.