BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 384
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 384 (Evans)
As Amended May 10, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :39-0
JUDICIARY 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Wagner, Atkins, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Dickinson, Beth Gaines, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Huber, Huffman, Jones, | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| |Monning, Wieckowski | |Donnelly, Gatto, Hall, |
| | | |Hill, Lara, Mitchell, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Solorio, |
| | | |Wagner |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Revises procedures for summary adjudication and
payment of the complex case fee. Specifically, this bill :
1)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 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, as specified. Establishes related procedures for the
filing of the motion.
2)Requires the payment of a single complex case fee on behalf of
all plaintiffs, as specified, and would make other conforming
changes. Provides that the above changes do not constitute a
change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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. Provides that the
SB 384
Page 2
total complex fees collected from all plaintiffs appearing in
a complex case shall not exceed $10,000.
2)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
counter-designated 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.
3)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.
4)Provides that a party may move for summary adjudication as to
one or more causes of action within an action, one or more
affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one
or more issues of duty, if it is contended that the cause of
action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense,
or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any
cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim
for damages. 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, 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 : This bill, co-sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of
California (CAOC) and the California Defense Counsel, seeks to
enact provisions on behalf of both the plaintiffs and defense
bar related to court efficiency.
SB 384
Page 3
The first provision, on behalf of the California Defense
Counsel, seeks to permit, until January 1, 2015, 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 of 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 bill sets forth the procedure for bringing a summary
adjudication motion. First, the parties whose claims or defense
are at issue are required to submit to the court a joint
stipulation setting forth the issues to be adjudicated, with a
declaration from each stipulating party demonstrating that a
ruling on the motion will further the interests of judicial
economy by reducing the time to be consumed at trial or by
significantly increasing the likelihood of settlement.
Next, within fifteen days of receiving the stipulations and
declarations, the court is required to notify the submitting
parties as to whether the motion may be filed. If the court
does not allow the motion to be filed, the parties may request
an informal conference to permit further evaluation of the
stipulations. Upon such a request, the court is required to
conduct the informal conference.
The California Defense Counsel maintains that because the
parties and the court have to agree to the filing of a motion
for summary adjudication on a legal issue or claim of damages,
there is no possibility under the bill for either party to file
a motion for purposes of delay or harassment. Unlike the prior
law, one side cannot unilaterally file a motion for summary
adjudication.
The second provision seeks to address issues relating to complex
case fees. 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
SB 384
Page 4
single complex filing fee is required on behalf of all
plaintiffs, whether filing separately or jointly.
The CAOC, sponsor of this provision, notes that several courts
have charged multiple complex case fees when only a single
complex fee should have been assessed pursuant to the above
memorandum. This bill clarifies, in statute, that only a single
complex case fee is to be paid on behalf of all plaintiffs,
whether filing separately or jointly, and makes conforming
changes to implement that clarification. The California Defense
Counsel does not object to this clarification.
This provision includes language stating that it is declaratory
of existing law, as set out in the Judicial Council memorandum.
Absent a statement that the above changes are declaratory of
existing law, the act of codifying the proposed clarification
could have the unintended consequence of calling into question
the practice of superior courts which followed the Judicial
Council's memorandum. This clarification prevents such an
undesired result.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0001557