BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|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, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway,
Cooley, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell,
Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor,
Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel
P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone,
Ting, Torres, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk,
Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
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