BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 384 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 6, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 384 (Evans) - As Amended: May 10, 2011 Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:10-0 (Consent) Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill: 1)Requires the payment of a single complex case fee on behalf of all plaintiffs, as specified, makes other conforming changes, and states these changes are declaratory of existing law. 2)Authorizes, until January 1, 2015, a motion for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim of damages, other than punitive damages, that does not completely dispose of either a cause of 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. FISCAL EFFECT Minor revenue loss to the trial courts. According to Judicial Council, at most, a few courts statewide are charging multiple complex case fees when only a single fee should be assessed pursuant to a 2004 council memorandum. The additional revenue resulting from these inconsistencies, which the courts should not now be collecting, will, consistent with current law, no longer be collected under this bill. COMMENTS 1)Purpose . This bill, which is co-sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) and the California Defense Counsel, enacts provisions on behalf of both the plaintiffs SB 384 Page 2 and defense bar related to court efficiency. 2)Complex Case Fees . Under existing law, a complex case fee must be paid to the court clerk at the time of filing the first paper if the case has been designed as complex. That fee is in addition to the first appearance fee, and existing law limits the total complex case fees collected from all plaintiffs appearing in a complex case from exceeding $10,000. The Judicial Council issued a memorandum in January 2004 to clarify application of this statute. This bill clarifies the statute consistent with the council's memorandum and current practice in all but a few courts. 3)Summary Adjudication . SB 2594 (Robbins)/Chapter 1561 of 1990 eliminated the ability of parties to move for summary adjudication of issues unless the motion completely disposed of a cause of action or affirmative defense. The sponsor, the California Judges Association (CJA), argued that it was a waste of court time to attempt to resolve issues if the resolution of those issues does not result in summary adjudication of a cause of action or affirmative defense. (Since the cause of action must still be tried, the court would still have to reconsider much of the same evidence at the time of trial.) This bill allows a motion for summary adjudication of a legal issue or claim for damages (other than punitive damages) that will not be completely dispositive on that issue or claim. The significant distinguishing feature of this proposal, however, is that it would require the consent and stipulation of all the parties and the court as a pre-condition for the motion being filed. Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081