BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 555
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
555 (Alejo)
As Amended August 26, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |79-0 |(April 13, |SENATE: |40-0 | (September 1, |
| | |2015) | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY: Extends the provisions of the Expedited Jury Trials
Act indefinitely. Specifically, this bill repeals the January
1, 2016, sunset date of the Expedited Jury Trials Act and adds a
new Mandatory Expedited Jury Trial program.
The Senate amendments:
1)Make the Expedited Jury Trial process mandatory for cases
where the amount in controversy is less than or equal to
$25,000, with certain exceptions.
2)Provide for a six-month delayed implementation date for
Judicial Council to develop rules and forms, and a sunset date
of July 1, 2019.
3)Specify a time limit of up to five hours for each party to
AB 555
Page 2
complete voir dire and to present its case;
4)Update the requirement in existing law for Judicial Council to
adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures to
reflect removal of the sunset date; and
5)Eliminate, because of 3) above, the requirement for Judicial
Council to adopt rules for time limits for jury selection and
presentation of evidence and argument.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides, until January 1, 2016, the Expedited Jury Trial Act
(Act), which allows an expedited jury trial (EJT) in a civil
matter after a dispute has arisen and an action has been filed
when all parties agree to participate and, if represented,
their respective counsel sign a proposed consent order
granting an expedited jury trial.
2)Provides that, except as specifically authorized in the Act,
the implementing rules, or in a consent order authorized
therein, the applicable statutes and rules governing civil
actions apply.
3)Allows the parties to exercise only three peremptory
challenges and to request one additional peremptory challenge
each, which is to be granted by the court as the interests of
justice may require, and prescribes that a jury may deliberate
as long as needed.
4)Provides that the rules of evidence apply in expedited jury
trials, unless the parties stipulate otherwise.
5)Greatly limits the ability of the parties to obtain
post-verdict relief such as directed verdicts, motions to set
aside the verdict, or motions for a new trial.
AB 555
Page 3
6)Requires the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2011,
to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures
implementing the provisions for expedited jury trials
7)Defines various purposes of and terms used in the Act.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS: The author explains the reason for the bill as
follows:
The expedited jury trial (EJT) option was executed 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.
Effectiveness of the EJT Program in Streamlining Trial Court
Congestion. The goal of the EJT in California has been to
promote the speedy and economical resolution of civil cases in
order to conserve judicial resources. Participation has been
completely voluntary. The applicable rules of procedure have
been designed to be flexible and a reduced jury size is employed
in the trials. The trials are completed in approximately one
day. However, since its January 1, 2011, inception date, this
new trial option has not been used as frequently as originally
anticipated.
AB 555
Page 4
According to an informational report submitted to the Judicial
Council on January 30, 2015, 39 of the 58 counties reported data
on the use (or non-use) of EJTs in their superior courts from
January 1, 2011, to August 31, 2014. Of those 39 counties, 25
reported that no EJTs had been conducted during the reporting
period. The 14 remaining counties reported that one or more
EJTs were conducted during the reporting period. A compilation
of the figures from those 14 counties shows that a total of 156
EJTs were conducted during the entire reporting period. For
individual courts, the percentage of EJTs ranged from 2% to 9%
of the jury trials conducted during the reporting period.
A Need for Adjustments to the Act's Existing Provisions by
Practitioners. Taking into consideration the small percentage
of jury trials which have been conducted pursuant to the EJT
program, an informal working group has been formed to discuss
how the program could become more attractive to parties and more
beneficial to the overburdened court system. The working group
consists of many of the same stakeholders who urged enactment of
the Expedited Jury Trials Act in 2011. The provisions of this
bill are the result of that EJT working group.
According to the sponsor, the Consumer Attorneys of California,
the EJT format provides resolution of cases while saving time,
expense and court resources.
Analysis Prepared by:
Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN:
0001753
AB 555
Page 5