BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 1932 (Jones)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: June 10, 2014
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Appellate Court Decisions
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require that judgments by the appellate division
of the superior courts to contain a brief statement of the
reasons for the judgment and would provide that a judgment
stating only "affirmed" or "reversed" is insufficient.
BACKGROUND
California law provides for an appellate division in the
superior court of every county and city and county in the state.
Comprised of three judges (or four judges when the Chief
Justice finds it necessary), these courts handle appeals and
petitions for extraordinary writs, such as mandamus,
prohibition, and certiorari, in limited civil cases (civil cases
involving an amount that is $25,000 or less) for their
respective superior courts. These appellate divisions are to be
distinguished from the District Courts of Appeal which are
divided into six appellate districts across the state and handle
appeals from the decisions of the trial courts that fall within
their respective districts in unlimited civil cases (such as
civil cases involving an amount over $25,000 and family law
cases) and also decide certain cases that do not start in the
superior court and instead must be filed at the Court of Appeal
(such as petitions for extraordinary writs, such as mandamus,
prohibition, and certiorari, in unlimited civil cases).
Under current California Rules of Court, appellate division
judges are not generally required to write opinions in any case
(more)
AB 1932 (Jones)
Page 2 of ?
decided by them, but may do so whenever they deem it advisable
or in the public interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule
8.887(a).)
This bill would require that a judgment of the appellate
division in an appeal include a brief statement of the reasons
for the judgment.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides for an appellate division of the superior
court consisting of three judges or, when the Chief Justice
finds it necessary, four judges, in every county and city and
county, as specified. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 77(a); see also
Cal. Const. art. VI, Sec. 3.)
Existing law provides that the appellate division of the
superior court has jurisdiction on appeal in all cases in which
an appeal may be taken to the superior court or the appellate
division of the superior court as provided by law, except where
the appeal is a retrial in the superior court. (Code Civ. Proc.
Sec. 77(e); see also Cal. Const. art. VI, Sec. 11.)
Existing law provides that the concurrence of two judges of the
appellate division of the superior court shall be necessary to
render the decision in every case in, and to transact any other
business except business that may be done at chambers by the
presiding judge of, the division. The presiding judge shall
convene the appellate division when necessary. The presiding
judge shall also supervise its business and transact any
business that may be done at chambers. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
77(d).)
Existing rule of court provides that appellate division judges
are not generally required to write opinions in any case decided
by them, but may do so whenever they deem it advisable or in the
public interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.887(a).)
This bill would require a judgment of the appellate division in
an appeal to contain a brief statement of the reasons for the
judgment. A judgment stating only "affirmed" or "reversed" is
insufficient.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
AB 1932 (Jones)
Page 3 of ?
According to the author:
Appellate divisions hear appeals from limited civil cases as
well as infraction and misdemeanor criminal matters. Under
current law, there are no requirements that appellate
divisions set forth reasons for their decision. This has
resulted in many courts issuing decisions saying simply
"Affirmed" or "Reversed," without any suggestion of the
court's reasoning.
The issuance of one-word decisions by appellate divisions does
not inspire confidence in these appeals because the litigants,
a significant number of whom are self-represented, have no
idea how or why the appellate division reached its decision.
Decisions without explanation tend to make these litigants
believe the court did not give them due consideration because
of their self-represented status. While the appeals in
question don't necessarily involve the most serious of cases,
they do have considerable implications for the individuals
involved.
AB 1932 would require court appellate divisions to provide a
very brief statement explaining their reasons for affirming or
reversing a trial court decision. A one-word decision would
not be permitted.
The sponsor of the bill, the Conference of California Bar
Associations adds that "[s]etting forth a basic summary of
reasons will not add costs to the appellate division process.
Every decision - even a decision of one word - must be printed
and mailed, so the attendant administrative costs of requiring a
brief statement of reasons will be exactly the same. Further,
every decision will have generated a tentative ruling or, at
minimum, written notes developed during the consideration of the
matter that can easily be transposed to the final judgment. Even
if this were not the case, the value of any minimal additional
time or effort expended in providing even a cursory explanation
of decision should be more than offset by enhanced public
respect for the courts."
2. This bill seeks to improve the public's understanding of
decisions by the appellate divisions of the superior courts
This bill seeks to require appellate divisions of superior
courts to set forth a brief statement of the reasons for their
AB 1932 (Jones)
Page 4 of ?
judgments and to discourage the courts from merely stating the
words "affirmed" or "reversed" without any additional
information. The Judicial Council, while taking a neutral
position on this bill, writes:
The council is supportive of the underlying rationale for the
bill, and agrees that providing a brief statement of reasons
for judgments issued by the appellate divisions of superior
courts should help increase the public's trust and confidence
in the judicial system.
However, the Judicial Council also recognizes the potential
for increased workload for at least some of the trial courts,
which comes at an especially difficult time for our justice
system in light of the ongoing and severe budget constraints
the courts are facing. In addition, the Judicial Council is
mindful of the fact that not all trial courts have dedicated
judicial officers or permanent judges assigned to their
appellate divisions, and that in at least one court, judges
volunteer to sit on the appellate division to hear those cases
in addition to their usual assignments.
In response to potential concerns that this bill might increase
burdens on the courts, the author argues that:
[S]etting forth a basic summary of reasons will not add costs
to the appellate division process for the simple reason that
the current one word decision practice in many courts already
necessitates printing and mailing of the decision. Nor will
processing time or the amount of labor be meaningfully
increased because the vast majority of statements of reasons
in these cases already will have been written down during the
consideration of the matter; indeed, many (if not all)
appellate divisions already issue tentative rulings in advance
of oral argument, which tentative rules can easily be
transposed to the final judgment with appropriate
modification.
Reasonably, the value of any additional time or effort
expended in providing even a cursory explanation of decision
should be more than offset by enhanced public respect for the
courts.
As noted in Comment 1 above, the proponents argue that one word
decisions do not inspire confidence in these appeals because the
litigants have no idea how or why the appellate division reached
AB 1932 (Jones)
Page 5 of ?
its decision, particularly in the instance of self-represented
litigants. Such decisions without any further explanation can
make such litigants believe they did not receive due
consideration from the courts, simply because of their
self-represented status.
As a result, the requirement that decisions include additional
information, however minimal, would have important for all
litigants. Such a requirement would arguably make the litigants
in the underlying matter to feel that their appeal was
adequately considered and better understand the decision.
Supporters note that the bill would also "provide more guidance
to folks that may find themselves in similar cases in the
future."
Support : California Chamber of Commerce; California Citizens
Against Lawsuit Abuse; California Farm Bureau Federation;
California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors;
Civil Justice Association of California; National Federation of
Independent Businesses; State Farm Mutual Insurance Company;
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Conference of California Bar Associations
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
**************