BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 522| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONSENT Bill No: AB 522 Author: Bloom (D) Amended: 5/24/13 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/4/13 AYES: Evans, Anderson, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 4/15/13 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Civil actions: exceptions to dismissal for delay in prosecution SOURCE : Family Law Section of the State Bar of California DIGEST : This bill expands the types of actions to which the exception to dismissal of an action for delay in prosecution applies and includes an action for the dissolution of a domestic partnership, an action based on void or voidable marriage, and an action relating to a child custody or visitation order. This bill prohibits those actions from being dismissed under the specified conditions that also includes if an order regarding child custody or visitation has been issued, as specified, or if a valid personal conduct restraining order exists and if an issue in the case has been bifurcated, as specified. ANALYSIS : CONTINUED AB 522 Page 2 Existing law: 1. Provides that an action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced, and authorizes a court to dismiss an action for delay in prosecution if the action is not brought within the specified time period, either on the court's own motion or on motion of the defendant, as specified. (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Sections 583.310, 583.360) 2. Prohibits dismissal for delay in prosecution in an action for dissolution of marriage or legal separation if a valid order for child or spousal support exists, or, if in an action for dissolution of marriage, a separate trial on the issue of the status of the marriage has been conducted, as specified. (CCP Section 583.161) This bill: 1. Expands the types of actions to which the exception to dismissal of an action for delay in prosecution applies to include: (1) an action for the dissolution of a domestic partnership; (2) an action based on void or voidable marriage; and (3) an action relating to a child custody or visitation order. 2. Prohibits dismissal of the types of actions described above if any of the following conditions exist: An order for child support or an order regarding child custody or visitation has been issued in connection with the proceeding, and that order has not been terminated by court order or operation of law, as specified; An order for spousal support has been issued in connection with the proceeding and the order has not been terminated by the court; or A personal conduct restraining order has been issued pursuant to the Domestic Violence Protection Act, and that order has not been terminated by either operation of law or by the court. Background CONTINUED AB 522 Page 3 Existing law provides for the dismissal of an action where that action has not been brought to trial within five years after the plaintiff has filed his complaint, subject to certain exceptions. This rule is designed to ensure that plaintiffs diligently proceed with the lawsuit in a timely manner. From a policy perspective, it is important that cases are tried before evidence is lost or destroyed, the memories of witnesses become hazy, and to protect defendants from being subjected to unmeritorious claims. In Bank of America v. Moore & Harrah, 54 Cal.App.2d 37, 43, the court explained that the "statute has the very salutary purpose of expediting trials. Its language is clear and definite and the integrity of its meaning has generally been upheld by the courts in a plenitude of decisions." However, there are exceptions to this general rule, including certain family law actions where litigants often represent themselves, and deal with complex and highly emotional constitutional and fundamental rights. Additionally, many parties to family law litigation reconcile prior to the conclusion of their case, or resolve their case through a series of short hearings rather than in one major trial. The Legislature has acknowledged that litigants dealing with these weighty and complex family issues may need more protection than general civil litigants, and has exempted from the automatic dismissal rule any action for dissolution of marriage where there is a valid order for child or spousal support, or where a separate trial on the issue of the status of the marriage has been conducted. Prior legislation . AB 2208 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, Chapter 1269, Statutes of 1994), among other things, created two additional exceptions to the requirement for bringing a civil action to trial within five years for (1) actions for dissolution of marriage or legal separation in which a spousal support order issued in connection with the proceeding is in effect and (2) actions for dissolution of marriage in which a trial on the issue of the status of the dissolution of the marriage has been conducted separately from a trial of other issues in the action. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: CONTINUED AB 522 Page 4 No SUPPORT : (Verified 6/4/13) Family Law Section of the State Bar of California (source) Association of Certified Family Law Specialists Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Bar Association of San Francisco - Family Law Section Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : This bill's sponsor, Family Law Section of the State Bar of California, argues that "the purpose of the mandate to bring cases to trial within five years is to try cases when witness's memories are fresher and the evidence has not gone stale, and to protect defendants from being subjected to unmeritorious claims. But, unlike civil litigation, wherein the actual parties rarely set foot in a courtroom prior to trial, family law litigants often litigate core issues of custody, visitation, support, property restraint and other forms of injunctive relief prior to trial. Yet, cases wherein a court has made such temporary orders are not exempted from mandatory dismissal. This proposal would bring consistency to the Code." ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 4/15/13 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Torres, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NO VOTE RECORDED: Harkey, Lowenthal, Vacancy AL:k 6/4/13 Senate Floor Analyses CONTINUED AB 522 Page 5 SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED