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: 8/26/15 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 renames the existing Expedited Jury Trials
Act (hereinafter "EJT Act" or "Act") as the Voluntary EJT Act
and modifies the Act to extend the number of hours for each side
to present their case and to repeal the January 1, 2016 sunset
date. This bill also establishes the Mandatory EJT Act to make
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.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/26/15 make technical corrections,
including a correction to an internal cross reference.
AB 555
Page 2
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/24/15 (1) expand the list of
circumstances under which either party may opt out of a
mandatory EJT to include where: (a) a case has been reclassified
as unlimited, as specified; or (b) the complaint contains a
demand for attorney's fees, except as specified; (2) clarify
what constitutes "good cause" for a judge to allow the parties
to opt out of an otherwise mandatory EJT; (3) delete the
definition of "post-trial motion;" (4) increase the number of
peremptory challenges from three to four; (5) increase the
number of jurors to allow for an alternate; (6) add both a
delayed enactment date of July 1, 2016 and a three year sunset
to the mandatory EJT provisions of the bill; and (7) make other
technical and clarifying changes.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the EJT Act, with a January 1, 2016 sunset.
2) 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
AB 555
Page 3
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.
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) 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.
5) 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.
6) 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.
7) 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
AB 555
Page 4
accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.
8) 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.
9) Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms to
establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of
this chapter, as specified.
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) Renames the Act as the Voluntary EJT Act and removes the
Act's January 1, 2016 sunset date, thereby extending these
provisions indefinitely.
4) Establishes the Mandatory EJT Act to require that an action
or special proceeding treated as a limited civil case under
existing law be conducted as a mandatory EJT, as specified.
5) Permits either party to opt out of the mandatory EJT
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;
AB 555
Page 5
The case involves claims of intentional conduct;
The case has been reclassified as unlimited pursuant
to specified law;
The complaint contains a demand for attorney's fees,
unless those fees are sought pursuant to Civil Code
Section 1717 (allowing for reasonable attorney's fees in
an action on a contract, where the contract specifically
provides for the award of attorney's fees and costs when
incurred to enforce that contract); or
The judge finds good cause exists for the action not
to proceed under the mandatory EJT rules. Good cause
includes, but is not limited to, a showing that a party
needs more than five hours to present or defend the action
and that the parties have been unable to stipulate to
additional time.
1) Includes various provisions for mandatory EJTs that are
identical to existing law for voluntary EJTs. These identical
provisions generally relate to:
The definition of the term "high/low" agreement;
The cap on the time each party has to present its
case, including voir dire;
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
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, these
provisions:
AB 555
Page 6
Allow for an alternate juror for a total of eight
jurors and one alternate;
Allow for four peremptory challenges;
Provides that a judgment in a limited civil case
conducted as an EJT may be appealed , as specified;
Provide 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. Provide, 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;
Allow 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;
Provide 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
Require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1,
2016, to establish uniform procedures implementing the
Mandatory EJT Acts, as specified.
1) Includes a July 1, 2016 enactment date and a July 1, 2019
sunset date for the Mandatory EJT Act provisions.
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
the procedures for the state's expedited civil jury trial
process and required the Judicial Council to adopt rules and
AB 555
Page 7
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. . . . AB 555
removes the sunset for the current expedited jury trial
statutes, provides some procedural fixes [], 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: (Verified8/26/15)
AB 555
Page 8
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: (Verified8/26/15)
American Council of Life Insurers
Association of California Life and Health 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
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
Page 9
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
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. [ . . . ]
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 Association of California Life
and Health Insurance Companies and the American Council of Life
Insurers write in opposition:
Most insurance companies, like most individuals, would prefer
to avoid Jury trials for a number of reasons. If insurers
must go to trial, it is usually not be choice so there is
usually not much benefit to having expedited rules versus a
more deliberative process. As the cost of mandatory expedited
trials under $25,000 is high, it can often cost more than what
it at issue. Most companies would prefer a reasonable
AB 555
Page 10
arbitration process, per what is allowed under California law
and the contract.
If a case goes before a jury, we do not believe there should
be a limitation as to what procedures are available and what
inquiries can be made-including time on voir dire, number of
jurors and any appeal rights. The award value can be quickly
agreed to by both parties in court.
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
8/28/15 8:44:47
**** END ****