BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 384 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 384 (Evans) As Amended September 1, 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 | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDICIARY 9-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Feuer, Wagner, Atkins, | | | | |Dickinson, Beth Gaines, | | | | |Huber, Huffman, Jones, | | | | |Monning, Wieckowski | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 and orders 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 SB 384 Page 2 change in, but are declaratory of, existing law. 3)Clarifies that a "demand for money" served by an attorney to a building owner or tenant containing a construction-related accessibility claim, which must under existing law include a written advisory of the owner's or tenant's rights and obligations, is defined as such whether or not the attorney intends to file a complaint and whether or not the attorney eventually files a complaint in state or federal court. 4)Provides that a violation of an attorney's obligation to include a written advisory of rights and obligations to a defendant regarding a construction-related accessibility claim constitutes cause for the imposition of discipline against the attorney. 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 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 SB 384 Page 3 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. 5)Requires an attorney, when serving a written demand for money or a complaint on a defendant for a construction-related accessibility claim, to include a written advisory to the defendant of the defendant's rights and obligations, including specifically the right of a qualified defendant to request a stay and an early evaluation conference of the allegations in the complaint. 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. 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. SB 384 Page 4 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 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. SB 384 Page 5 The last provisions, also supported by the bill's sponsors, clarify a plaintiff attorney's requirement, at the time a defendant is served with a demand for money regarding a construction-related accessibility claim, to specify that the requirements apply irrespective of whether the attorney intends to or does file a complaint in state or federal court. This bill further provides that an attorney's violation of this requirement constitutes cause for the imposition of discipline against the attorney. Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002729