BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 555|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 555
Author: Alejo (D)
Amended: 7/2/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 7/14/15
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
NOES: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Civil actions
SOURCE: California Defense Counsel
Consumer Attorneys of California
DIGEST: This bill modifies the existing Expedited Jury Trials
Act (hereinafter, "EJT Act" or "Act") to extend the number of
hours for each side to present their case and to repeal the
Act's January 1, 2016 sunset date. Separately, this bill makes
expedited jury trials (EJTs) mandatory for limited civil cases,
subject to the right of parties to opt out in certain
circumstances, as specified. This bill includes various
provisions governing mandatory EJTs, such as provision allowing
for a right of appeal, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Allows cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or
AB 555
Page 2
the value of the property in controversy amounts to $25,000
or less to be tried as a limited civil case with informal
trial requirements.
2) Allows, generally, each party to a civil action a limit of
six peremptory challenges of the jury panel.
3) Establishes the EJT Act and defines various terms.
4) Provides that all parties agreeing to participate in an EJT
and, if represented, their counsel, must sign a proposed
consent order granting an EJT, which must contain, among
other things, the parties' agreement to all of the following:
That all parties waive all rights to appeal and move
for directed verdict or make any post-trial motions, as
defined, except as specified;
That each side shall have up to three hours in which
to present its case;
That the jury shall be composed of eight or fewer
jurors with no alternates;
That each side shall be limited to three peremptory
challenges, unless the court permits an additional
challenge in specified cases; and
That the trial and pretrial matters will proceed under
the Act's provisions limiting the ability to appeal, time
to present the case, number of jurors, and number of
peremptory challenges, and, unless the parties expressly
agree otherwise in the proposed consent order, under all
other provisions in this Act and implementing rules of
court.
1) Provides that the verdict in an EJT case is binding, subject
to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations
concerning the amount of the award agreed upon by the
parties. Provides that a vote of six of the eight jurors is
required for a verdict, unless the parties stipulate
otherwise.
AB 555
Page 3
2) Provides that, except where court approval is required under
specified law, the agreement to participate in the EJT
process is binding upon the parties, unless: (a) all parties
stipulate to end the agreement to participate; or (b) the
court, on its own motion or at the request of a party by
noticed motion, finds that good cause exists for the action
not to proceed under the rules of the Act.
3) Provides that by agreeing to participate in the EJT process,
the parties agree to waive any motions for directed verdict,
motions to set aside the verdict or any judgment rendered by
the jury, or motions for a new trial on the basis of
inadequate or excessive damages.
4) Provides that by agreeing to participate in the EJT process,
the parties agree to waive the right to bring post-trial
motions or to appeal from the determination of the matter,
except as specified.
5) Requires court approval for the use of an EJT and any
high/low agreements or other stipulations for an EJT
involving either: (a) a self-represented litigant; or (b) a
minor, an incompetent person, or a person for whom a
conservator has been appointed.
6) Requires the court to issue the consent order as proposed by
the parties, unless it finds good cause why the action should
not proceed though the EJT process, in which case the court
must deny the proposed consent order in its entirety.
7) Specifies that juries in EJT cases shall be composed of
eight jurors, unless the parties have agreed to fewer and
that no alternates shall be selected.
8) Requires the court to allow each side three peremptory
challenges. If there are more than two parties in a case and
more than two sides, as determined by the court under
specified law, the parties may request one additional
challenge each, which the court is to grant as the interests
of justice may require.
AB 555
Page 4
9) Provides that nothing in this chapter is intended to
preclude a jury from deliberating as long as needed.
10)Provides that the rules of evidence apply in EJTs, unless
the parties stipulate otherwise, and that the right to issue
subpoenas and notices to appear to secure the attendance of
witnesses or the production of documents at trial shall be in
accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. Prohibits any
stipulation by the parties to use relaxed rules of evidence
from being construed to eliminate, or in any way affect, the
right of a witness or party to invoke any applicable
privilege or other law protecting confidentiality.
11)Provides that all statutes and rules governing costs and
attorney's fees shall apply in EJTs, unless the parties agree
otherwise in the consent order.
12)Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms to
establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of
this chapter, as specified.
13)Provides that the Act will sunset on January 1, 2016.
This bill:
1) Extends the time that each party has to present its case in
a voluntary EJT to five hours, including time to complete
voir dire.
2) Requires the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2016, to
update rules and forms and establish uniform procedures
implementing the procedures of the EJT Act, as specified.
3) Removes the Act's January 1, 2016 sunset date, thereby
extending these provisions indefinitely.
4) Provides, separately, that an action or special proceeding
treated as a limited civil case under existing law, as
specified, must be conducted as an EJT pursuant to specified
mandatory EJT provisions.
5) Permits either party to opt out of the mandatory EJT
AB 555
Page 5
procedures if:
Punitive damages are sought;
Damages in excess of insurance policy limits are
sought;
A party's insurer is providing a legal defense subject
to a reservation of rights;
The case involves a claim reportable to a governmental
entity;
The case involves a claim of moral turpitude that may
affect an individual's professional licensing;
The case involves claims of intentional conduct; or
The judge finds good cause exists for the action not
to proceed under the mandatory EJT rules.
1) Includes various provisions for mandatory EJTs that are
identical to existing law for voluntary EJTs. These identical
provisions generally relate to:
Definitions of the terms "high/low" agreement and
"post-trial motions;"
The cap on the time each party has to complete voir
dire and present its case;
The number of jurors and peremptory challenges;
The ability of the jury to deliberate as long as
needed and the number of jurors required for a verdict;
The application of the rules of evidence;
The application of the Code of Civil Procedure for
purposes of subpoenas, notices to appear, and the
production of documents at trial; and
AB 555
Page 6
The application of all statutes and rules governing
costs and attorney's fees.
1) Includes various provisions for mandatory EJTs that differ
from existing law for voluntary EJTs. Specifically, this
bill:
Provides that a judgment in a limited civil case
conducted as an EJT may be appealed , as specified;
Provides that its procedures and the implementing
rules of court shall apply to EJTs conducted in limited
civil cases, unless the parties agree otherwise, as
specified, and the court so orders. Provides, further,
that any matters not expressly addressed by this bill, in
the implementing rules of court, or in an agreement
authorized by this bill and the implementing rules, are
governed by applicable statutes and rules governing civil
actions;
Allows the parties to agree to modify the rules and
procedures specified in this bill and the implementing
rules of court, subject to the court's approval;
Provides that the verdict in a limited civil case
following an EJT shall be appealable, as specified, and
subject to any written high/low agreement or other
stipulations by the parties concerning the amount of the
award; and
Requires the Judicial Council, on or before July 1,
2016, to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform
procedures implementing this bill's mandatory EJT
provisions, as specified.
Background
In 2010, following the proposal of a Judicial Council working
group, the Legislature enacted AB 2284 (Evans, Chapter 764,
Statutes of 2010) to establish the Expedited Jury Trials Act in
California. Sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and
Consumer Attorneys of California, AB 2284 generally set forth
AB 555
Page 7
the procedures for the state's expedited civil jury trial
process and required the Judicial Council to adopt rules and
forms, as specified, to establish uniform procedures
implementing the provisions of that process. Under the
resulting streamlined process, an EJT, as compared to a regular
jury trial, is shorter in length (at three hours total, separate
from voir dire), smaller in jury size (with eight as opposed to
12 jurors), and has a faster jury selection process (allowing
for only three peremptory challenges per side). Perhaps most
importantly, there is no right to an appeal, thereby resulting
in finality of the judgment earlier than in many regular jury
trials. The Act is currently set to sunset on January 1, 2016.
This bill, sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and the
Consumer Attorneys of California, now seeks to repeal the sunset
date placed on the voluntary EJT Act in order to extend the Act
indefinitely, while also extending the time for each side to
present their case from three hours to five hours, including
voir dire. Separately, this bill makes EJTs mandatory for civil
cases of under $25,000 or less, except as specified, and sets
for rules and procedures, accordingly.
Comments
As stated by the author:
The expedited jury trial (EJT) option was enacted in 2011 to
help courts deal with overloaded dockets that were the result
of major budget cuts and courtroom closures. EJTs are ideal
for cases involving smaller dollar amounts that do not involve
catastrophic injuries, cases that often affect lower-income
workers. These cases are prone to being lost in the system and
leaving vulnerable Californians without compensation. The EJT
statute is set to sunset January 1, 2016.
Despite the need to resolve these cases and support for the
innovations in EJTs, parties have not been utilizing the EJT
system. Although the cause for the lack of use is unknown, it
is possible that the timeframes allowed for presenting cases
is too short, that voir dire is too limited, and that the lack
of appeal rights discourages parties, their counsel and
insurers from agreeing to participate.
AB 555
Page 8
AB 555 removes the sunset for the current expedited jury trial
statutes, provides some procedural fixes to address the
problems above, and creates a new chapter requiring limited
civil cases to be conducted as expedited jury trials.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified8/17/15)
California Defense Counsel (co-source)
Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source)
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/17/15)
American Insurance Association
American Council of Life Insurers
Association of California Insurance Companies
Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies
Civil Justice Association of California
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies
Personal Insurance Federation of California
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Co-sponsor Consumer Attorneys of
California writes that:
This bill removes the sunset for the current expedited jury
trial statutes and provides some procedural fixes. For
example, while both parties are allowed three hours to present
their case, judges in different jurisdictions interpret this
AB 555
Page 9
time requirement differently. Some judges allow EJTs to be
held in multiple days, while others do not. Some judges do
not include voir dire in this time frame, while others require
jury selection and presentation to be complete on the same
day. AB 555 allows each party 5 hours to present their case
and complete voir dire. This provides parties with ample time
to present their case and allows them [to] use their time as
they see fit, divided amongst jury selection and case
presentation.
Second, in order to provide cases with smaller dollar amounts
their day in court, AB 555 adds a new statute creating a
Limited Jurisdiction Expedited Jury Trial Act for all limited
jurisdiction cases under $25,000. Under this Act the EJT
system will be mandatory for limited jurisdiction cases with a
series of opt out exceptions. AB 555 also reinstates the
right to appeal for limited jurisdiction cases to their
respective Superior Court Appellate Division.
AB 555 improves the EJT system, which provides resolution of
cases while saving time, expense and court resources.
Also in support, co-sponsor California Defense Counsel adds:
Despite the pressing need for efficiencies in our civil trial
system, and despite the consensus support for the innovations
in EJTs, utilization of the model has not been as robust as
hoped. There are varying theories as to the cause of this
underutilization. It is possible that the timeframes allowed
for presenting cases is too short, that voir dire is too
limited, and that the lack of appeal rights discourages
parties, their counsel and insurers from agreeing to
participate.
We believe that it is time to act more aggressively to achieve
the efficiencies in expedited jury trials. To that end, AB
555 proposes to make the EJT model mandatory for the first
AB 555
Page 10
time, but only for a very limited range of cases and with
carefully crafted exemptions for certain types of cases where
EJT may be inappropriate. [ . . . ]
To address perceived disincentives in the current law, the
bill replaces the current per-side time limit to present cases
of three hours, exclusive of very limited time for voir dire
of jurors, with a five-hour per side limit, inclusive of voir
dire. Because EJT would now be mandatory in limited cases and
circumstances, AB 555 also provides for a right to appeal to
the appellate division of superior courts.
Working with our colleagues in the plaintiff's bar, we believe
that AB 555 has been carefully constructed to move towards the
efficiency promises of expedited jury trials, but with the
protections that plaintiffs, defendants and insurers deserve.
Given the compelling need [to] utilize extremely limited civil
trial resources as efficiently as possible, we believe that a
slightly bolder approach is now appropriate.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Personal Insurance Federation
of California, Association of California Insurance Companies,
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the American
Insurance Association take an oppose unless amended position on
this bill, writing that they are most concerned that "the bill
now mandates expedited jury trails for limited civil actions
($25,000 or less), even though certain cases may be too complex
for mandatory expedited jury trials. The current law was
supported by a variety of stakeholders due to its voluntary
nature." The coalition writes that if this bill is to continue
to impose mandatory EJTs on limited civil actions, they will
"strong concerns regarding the lack of flexibility in the
program" and request that, at minimum, the following amendments
be made to this bill: (1) add a sunset provision to allow for
determination of whether such a program is suitable; (2) include
within the opt-out provision allowing for good cause language
that would "include as 'good cause' a party's ability to show
that the party needs more than five hours to effectively
AB 555
Page 11
prosecute or defend the action, unless the parties are able to
stipulate to more time;" and (3) increase peremptory challenges
from three to four." The coalition also rights that they have
additional (unspecified) revisions to discuss with the author.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harper
Prepared by:Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/18/15 17:18:16
**** END ****