BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 731
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 14, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 731 (Committee on Judiciary) - As Amended: March 29, 2011
PROPOSED CONSENT
SENATE VOTE : 38-0
SUBJECT : CIVIL ACTIONS
KEY ISSUES :
1)SHOULD THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BE CLARIFIED AND
STREAMLINED TO IMPROVE THE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES INVOLVING
VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS?
2)SHOULD PARTIES TO A JUDICIAL ARBITRATION HAVE THE OPTION OF
FILING A REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL TO STOP ENTRY OF THE
ARBITRATOR'S AWARD AS THE JUDGMENT, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO FILE
AN UNNECESSARY TRIAL DE NOVO REQUEST EVEN IF THEY ARE
SATISFIED WITH THE AWARD AND DO NOT NEED A NEW TRIAL?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council,
seeks to implement changes in two areas of the law intended to
conserve judicial resources and help courts run more
efficiently. First, this bill codifies existing case law
specifying the process for a person to be removed from the list
of vexatious litigants kept by Judicial Council, and clarifies
the authority of presiding justices and judges under the
vexatious litigant statute as well as the applicability of that
statute in the Courts of Appeal. Second, with respect to
judicial arbitration awards, this bill provides parties with the
option of filing a request for dismissal to stop entry of the
arbitrator's award as a judgment, rather than having to request
a trial de novo to accomplish this when the parties are
satisfied with the award and a new trial is not needed. The
bill also extends the time to file either request from 30 days
to 60 days. This bill was approved unanimously in the Senate
SB 731
Page 2
without receiving any "no" votes, and there is no known
opposition.
SUMMARY : Streamlines and codifies certain procedures relating
to vexatious litigants and awards in judicial arbitration cases.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Clarifies that the vexatious litigant statute also applies to
the Courts of Appeal, and clarifies that the presiding justice
or presiding judge is authorized to designate another justice
or judge to act on his or her behalf in exercising the
authority and responsibilities under the statute.
2)Authorizes the presiding justice or presiding judge, or his or
her designee, to order the clerk to give notice of a vexatious
litigant's status if the clerk mistakenly files the litigation
without a prefiling order.
3)Permits a vexatious litigant to file an application to vacate
a prefiling order and remove his or her name from the Judicial
Council's list of vexatious litigants, if certain procedural
requirements are met, as specified:
a) The application must be filed with the court that
entered the prefiling order;
b) The application must be made before the presiding
justice or judge who originally declared the plaintiff to
be a vexatious litigant, if the justice or judge is
available. If the presiding justice or judge is not
available, the application may be made before his or her
designee.
4)Authorizes the court to vacate a prefiling order and remove
the plaintiff's name from the list of vexatious litigants upon
a showing of a material change in the facts upon which the
order was granted and that the ends of justice would be
served.
5)Limits a vexatious litigant to one application per
twelve-month period following the denial of a previous
application.
6)Allows the parties to a judicial arbitration to request a
dismissal when they are satisfied with the arbitration award
SB 731
Page 3
instead of having to file a request for a trial de novo or
risk having a judgment entered against them.
7)Extends from 30 days to 60 days the time period for either
party to file a request for dismissal or trial de novo.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes a court to enter a prefiling order that prohibits a
vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in pro per
without first obtaining permission of the presiding judge of
the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed, and
allows disobedience of such an order to be punished as
contempt of court. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 391.7
(a). All further references are to this code unless otherwise
noted.)
2)Allows the presiding judge to permit the filing of litigation
by a vexatious litigant only if it appears that the litigation
has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of
harassment or delay. (Section 391.7(b).)
3)Prohibits the court clerk from filing any litigation presented
by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless
the vexatious litigant first obtains an order from a presiding
judge permitting the order. Provides that if the clerk
mistakenly files the litigation without the order, any party
may file with the clerk to serve on the plaintiff and other
parties a notice stating that the plaintiff is a vexatious
litigant, thus automatically staying the litigation. (Section
391.7 (c).)
4)Permits a vexatious litigant to file an application in the
court that entered the prefiling order to vacate the order and
be removed from Judicial Council's list of vexatious
litigants. Provides that the criteria for vacating a
prefiling order and removing a vexatious litigant from the
list are that (1) there has been a material change in the
facts upon which the order was entered, or (2) the "ends of
justice" would be served. (Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161
Cal.App.4th 77, 83; PBA, LLC v. KPOD, Ltd. (2003) 112
Cal.App.4th 9965, 978.)
5)Requires, in each superior court with 18 or more judges, all
nonexempt unlimited civil cases to be submitted to judicial
SB 731
Page 4
arbitration if the amount in controversy, in the opinion of
the court, will not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)
for each plaintiff. (Section 1141.11(a).)
6)Authorizes a superior court with fewer than 18 judges to
provide by local rule that all nonexempt unlimited civil cases
be submitted to judicial arbitration if the amount in
controversy, in the opinion of the court, will not exceed
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each plaintiff. Further
authorizes any superior court to provide by local rule, when
it is determined to be in the best interests of justice, to
require all nonexempt unlimited civil cases to be submitted to
judicial arbitration. (Section 1141.11(b) and (c).)
7)Provides in all superior courts a uniform system of
arbitration of any cause upon stipulation of the parties,
regardless of the amount in controversy, or any cause in which
the plaintiff agrees that the arbitration award shall not
exceed the amount in controversy of $50,000. (Section
1141.12.)
8)Provides that an arbitration award shall be final unless a
request for a de novo trial is filed within 30 days after the
date the arbitrator files the award with the court. (Section
1141.20.)
9)Provides that if there is no request for a de novo trial and
the award is not vacated, then the award shall have the same
force and effect as a final judgment in any civil action or
proceeding, except that it is not subject to appeal nor may be
set aside except as specified under limited circumstances.
(Section 1141.23.)
COMMENTS : This non-controversial bill, sponsored by the
Judicial Council, seeks to implement changes in two areas of the
law intended to conserve judicial resources and help courts run
more efficiently. First, this bill codifies existing case law
specifying the process for a person to be removed from the list
of vexatious litigants kept by Judicial Council, and clarifies,
among other things, that the statute also applies to the Courts
of Appeal. Second, with respect to judicial arbitration awards,
this bill provides parties with the option of filing a request
for dismissal to stop entry of the arbitrator's award as a
judgment, rather than having to request a trial de novo to
accomplish this when the parties are satisfied with the award
SB 731
Page 5
and a new trial is not needed. The bill also extends the time
to file either request from 30 days to 60 days.
Need for the Bill: According to the author, this bill's dual
provisions are needed because "in light of the state's financial
crisis, it is increasingly important to find ways for the courts
to run more efficiently." With respect to the vexatious
litigant statute, the author contends that the bill is needed to
"clarify that statute applies in the Courts of Appeal and that
the presiding justice or judge may designate another justice or
judge to carry out his or her duties, as is currently the
practice in most courts with multiple justices or judges." The
author also contends that existing case law specifying the
process for a vexatious litigant to be removed from the Judicial
Council list should be codified to ensure consistency among the
courts, and that this bill will result in a savings of time and
money for both litigants and the courts.
The author also contends that existing law unnecessarily
requires parties in a judicial arbitration case to file a trial
de novo request to stop entry of the arbitrator's award as the
judgment, even if they are satisfied with the award and do not
need a new trial. The author and bill sponsor, the Judicial
Council, state:
SB 731 will reduce costs for the parties and the courts
associated with preparing, filing, and processing
unnecessary trial de novo requests. Providing parties
with the option of filing a request for dismissal to
stop entry of the arbitrator's award as the judgment
will allow parties who are satisfied with that award,
or who were able to reach agreement with the help of
the award, to settle their cases without also having to
file a trial de novo request. In addition, giving
parties an additional 30 days before the arbitrator's
award is entered as the judgment should also increase
the number of cases in which the parties have
sufficient time to work out the details of a
settlement, further reducing the number of unnecessary
trial de novo requests that are filed.
This bill clarifies and codifies the authority of presiding
justices and judges under the vexatious litigant statute .
Existing law authorizes a judge to enter a "pre-filing order"
that prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new
SB 731
Page 6
litigation as a self-represented litigant without first
obtaining leave of the presiding judge. According to the
Judicial Council, courts have held that the vexatious litigant
statutes also apply in the appellate courts, but this has not
been codified. Moreover, the statutory scheme governing
vexatious litigants does not currently authorize a presiding
justice or presiding judge to designate another justice or judge
to carry out his or her duties under this statute, such as
entering a pre-filing order, determining an application for
pre-filing approval, and giving notice of vexatious litigant's
status if new litigation is mistakenly filed without pre-filing
approval. This bill would clarify that the vexatious litigant
statute applies to matters in the Courts of Appeal, as well as
the trial courts, and that a presiding justice or judge may
delegate authority to make the pre-filing determination whether
an individual is a vexatious litigant who may be barred from
filing a lawsuit by virtue of that status.
In addition, current law allows a party to give notice of a
vexatious litigant's status if the clerk mistakenly accepts for
filing new litigation by the vexatious litigant without an order
from the presiding judge permitting the filing. However, the
statute does not currently authorize a presiding justice or
judge, in the situation in which a defendant may not know that
the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing
order, to direct the clerk to notify the parties of the
plaintiff's status. This bill addresses this problem by
authorizing the presiding justice or presiding judge to order
that notice be given of a vexatious litigant's status if the
clerk mistakenly files litigation without a pre-filing order.
This bill codifies existing case law specifying the process for
removal from the list of vexatious litigants. A vexatious
litigant subject to a pre-filing order may seek to be removed
from the vexatious litigant list maintained by the Judicial
Council. A vexatious litigant need not remain on the list
forever if he or she can demonstrate "a mending of the ways."
(Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 83.) The litigant
must file an application to vacate the order in the court that
entered the pre-filing order. (Id. at p. 96.) The criteria for
vacating a pre-filing order and removing a vexatious litigant
from the list are: (1) there has been a material change in the
facts upon which the order was entered, or (2) the ends of
justice would be served. (See PBA, LLC v. KPOD, Ltd. (2003) 112
Cal.App.4th 965, 978.) However, these criteria are not
SB 731
Page 7
currently codified. This bill would codify these criteria to
lend guidance to courts to decide applications to vacate a
pre-filing order. In addition, this bill would clarify that a
vexatious litigant who seeks to have a pre-filing order reversed
must submit the application to the judicial officer that entered
the order, and would establish that denial of such application
bars a vexatious litigant from filing another application until
at least 12 months have passed.
This bill would reduce costly and unnecessary trial de novo
requests following judicial arbitration cases. After a hearing
in a judicial arbitration proceeding pursuant to Section
1141.11, the arbitrator issues an award in the case, but the
award is not binding. Current law provides that the parties to
a judicial arbitration have 30 days after the arbitrator files
his or her award to request a trial de novo, and if the request
is not filed, the arbitrator's award will be entered as the
judgment of the court (Sections 1141.20, 1141.23).
According to the Judicial Council, the current statutory
structure appears to encourage parties to file requests for a
trial de novo even if they are satisfied with the arbitrator's
award and do not need a new trial. There are many reasons that
parties may not want a judgment entered against them in court.
For example, job and credit applications often ask whether a
judgment has been entered against the applicant, so entry of a
judgment could negatively impact the employability or
creditworthiness of the applicant. Thus, even if a party is
satisfied with the arbitrator's award, that person may not want
that award to be entered as a judgment against him or her.
Under the current statutes, however, the only way for a party to
prevent the award from being entered as a judgment is to file a
request for a trial de novo, even if the party does not intend
to bring the matter to trial. This inflexibility results in
increased and unnecessary costs for the parties and courts
associated with preparing, filing, and processing these de novo
trial requests.
This bill would allow a party to simply file a request for
dismissal in order to stop entry of the arbitrator's award as
the judgment in the case instead of having to file a request for
trial de novo. In addition, this bill would give the parties up
to 60 days, rather than 30 days, after the filing of the
arbitrator's award to file either a request for dismissal or a
request for trial de novo, if actually desired.
SB 731
Page 8
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334