BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair 2015-2016 Regular Session AB 1141 (Chau) Version: June 3, 2015 Hearing Date: June 16, 2015 Fiscal: No Urgency: No RD SUBJECT Civil actions DESCRIPTION Under existing law, if a plaintiff rejects a 998 settlement offer made by the defendant and fails to receive a better award at trial, the plaintiff may, at the court's discretion, be required to pay the defendant's pre and post-offer expert witness costs. However, if a defendant rejects the plaintiff's 998 settlement offer and fails to receive a more favorable judgment or award at trial, the court only has the discretion to order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's post-offer expert witness costs. This bill would equalize the treatment of expert witness costs when a settlement offer is rejected under section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure such that both plaintiffs and defendants could only recover post-offer expert witness costs. This bill would also reenact a provision allowing parties to stipulate to summary adjudication of an issue that does not dispose of a cause of action, upon approval of the court, as specified, that sunset on January 1, 2015. BACKGROUND The Code of Civil Procedure contains various provisions that seek to encourage settlement to avoid costly and unnecessary trials and that otherwise seek to quickly dispose of cases or claims (or settle issues) where there is no triable issue of AB 1141 (Chau) Page 2 of ? fact. Two of those sections, Section 998 relating to pre-trial settlement offers and Section 437c relating to summary judgments and summary adjudications, are the subjects of this bill. Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for the imposition of monetary sanctions against parties to civil actions that decline pre-trial settlement offers and subsequently fail to obtain a more favorable outcome at trial. Prior to 2005, the party that declined the offer and failed to obtain a better award at trial would have to pay the other party's expert witness costs. Then in 2005, amendments were made to an Assembly Judiciary Committee omnibus bill, AB 1742 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 706, Stats. 2005), wherein the word "post-offer" was added to the provision requiring a defendant to pay the plaintiff's expert witness costs when the defendant rejects the plaintiff's settlement offer and fails to do better at trial. That word was not added to the counterpart provision requiring a plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs in a parallel situation, creating what is presumed to be an unintended disparity in the treatment of plaintiffs and defendants with regard to consequences of rejecting what would have been a more favorable pre-trial settlement offer. Separately, in 2011, SB 384 (Evans, Ch. 419, Stats. 2011) was enacted to create court efficiencies by encouraging settlement of certain issues in a case by way of summary adjudication stipulations. By way of background, pursuant to Section 437c of the Code of Civil Procedure, after the filing of a lawsuit, either party to an action may move for summary judgment by contending that the action has no merit or that there is no defense thereto. Essentially, the party filing the motion is claiming that all necessary factual issues are resolved and need not be tried by the court because they are so one-sided. If the court finds that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, then the motion must be granted (which generally disposes of the whole case). If an issue of fact is presented, the court must permit trial thereof, though it may also find that certain other issues "are without substantial controversy" and grant summary adjudication as to those issues. SB 384 added provisions to that statute to allow parties to move for the summary adjudication of an issue that does not completely dispose of the cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty, as long as both parties stipulated and the court determined and ordered that the motion would further the AB 1141 (Chau) Page 3 of ? interests of judicial economy. On January 1, 2015, the summary adjudication provisions that were enacted by SB 384 were inadvertently allowed to sunset. This bill, co-sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and the Consumer Attorneys of California, would correct the above Section 998 disparity to ensure that a party rejecting a pre-trial settlement pays the post-offer costs of the settlement-offering party in a situation where the settlement-rejecting party fails to obtain a better award at trial. This bill would also reinstate the now-sunsetted summary adjudication provisions of Section 437c, indefinitely. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW 1. Existing law provides that a party may move for summary adjudication in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(f).) Existing law provides that a motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(f).) This bill would authorize a motion for summary adjudication of an issue, even if it would not dispose of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, or an issue of duty, upon the stipulation of the parties and a prior determination by the court that the motion will further the interests of judicial economy by reducing the time required for trial or significantly increasing the ability of the parties to settle. This bill would also include provisions for the filing of the stipulation, as specified. This bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes. 2. Existing law provides that, not less than 10 days before trial or arbitration of a civil action, any party may serve an offer in writing upon any other party to the action to allow judgment to be taken or an award to be entered in accordance with the terms and conditions stated at that time, as specified. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 998(b).) Existing law further provides that if an offer made by a AB 1141 (Chau) Page 4 of ? defendant is not accepted, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her post-offer costs and shall pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer. In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actual incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 998(c)(1).) Existing law further provides that if an offer made by a plaintiff is not accepted and the defendant fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitration, in its discretion, may require the defendant to pay a reasonable sum to cover postoffer costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the plaintiff, in addition to plaintiff's costs. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 998(d) (emphasis added).) This bill would conform the provision requiring a plaintiff to cover the defendant's "costs" (i.e. both pre-and post-offer costs) to the provision requiring a defendant to cover the plaintiff's "post-offer costs," only, so that both parties would only need to pay the post-offer costs of the other party, if the former declines an offer to settle and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award. COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill According to the author, "AB 1141[:] (1) reenacts and makes permanent the provisions in statute relating to summary adjudication that inadvertently sunsetted and (2) creates equity between defendants and plaintiffs by allowing both defendants and plaintiffs to seek [ ] post offer costs for expert witnesses." With respect to the first part of the bill, the AB 1141 (Chau) Page 5 of ? author writes: SB 384 (Evans, 2011) set forth the procedure for bringing a summary adjudication motion. First, the parties whose claims or defenses are at issue are required to submit to the court a joint stipulation setting forth the issues to be adjudicated, with a declaration from each stipulating party demonstrating that a ruling on the motion will further the interests of judicial economy by reducing the time to be consumed at trial or by significantly increasing the likelihood of settlement. Next, within fifteen days of receiving the stipulations and declarations, the court is required to notify the submitting parties as to whether the motion may be filed. If the court does not allow the motion to be filed, the parties may request an informal conference to permit further evaluation of the stipulations. Upon such a request, the court is required to conduct the informal conference. Because the parties and the court have to agree to the filing of a motion for summary adjudication on a legal issue or claim of damages, there is no possibility for either party to file a motion for purposes of delay or harassment. Unlike the law prior to SB 384, one side cannot unilaterally file a motion for summary adjudication. Unfortunately, the provisions of SB 384 inadvertently sunsetted on January 1, 2015 eliminating a legal tool that promotes judicial economy. With respect to the second section of the bill, the author explains: In 2005, an amendment to AB 1742 created an unintended inequity between plaintiffs and defendants regarding settlement offers under [Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)] Section 998. As the statute currently reads, when a plaintiff rejects a 998 settlement offer and fails to receive a better judgment at trial, he or she can be subject to an award of both pre and post offer expert fees paid by the defendant, under subdivision (c)(1). However, if the defendant rejects a plaintiff's 998 offer and fails to do better at trial, the plaintiff can only seek "post offer costs of the services of expert witnesses." CCP [Sec.] 998, subd. (d). This disparity in application of CCP [Sec.] 998 can have a very negative effect even in cases that never go to trial. If the parties exchange 998 settlement offers near the trial AB 1141 (Chau) Page 6 of ? date, during negotiations the plaintiff has to consider facing potentially all of the defendant's expert fees, while the defendant is only concerned with the plaintiff's post-offer expert fees. This inequity in application of CCP [Sec.] 998 applies more pressure on plaintiffs to settle than [it does on] defendants. Such an application was never intended by the Legislature. The Supreme Court confirmed this disparity in Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.4th 507, 532 (2006). Following the language in the statute, the Court held that defendants are entitled to both pre-offer and post-offer costs under section 998(c). Id. at 533. The Court noted in a footnote that plaintiffs could also receive expert fees regardless of if they were incurred pre or post-offer up until a 2005 amendment. Id. at n. 13. The word "post offer" was inserted into subdivision (d) by AB 1742 (2005-06), and was enacted as Chapter 706 of the laws of 2005. However, the 2005 amendment was not intended to create this inequity as the change was not mentioned in the bill's analysis. AB 1141 would resolve this situation by applying CCP [Sec.] 998 equally to both the plaintiffs and defendants. 2. Bill creates parity for the recovery of expert witness fees Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks to encourage the early settlement of cases by reducing a plaintiff's recovery when a plaintiff rejects a defendant's offer and then fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award. Generally, if a settlement offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff can be ordered by the court or arbitrator to pay a reasonable sum to cover the defendant's expert witness costs. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 998(c)(1).) In contrast, due to a change made to this section in 2005, if an offer made by a plaintiff is not accepted and the defendant fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the court or arbitration, in its discretion, may only require the defendant to pay a reasonable sum to cover the plaintiff's "post-offer" expert witness costs. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 998(d) (emphasis added).) This bill seeks to address the above-described disparate treatment of plaintiffs and defendants for purposes of paying expert witnesses costs in relation to a rejected settlement offer. As noted above, this appears to be the product of an AB 1141 (Chau) Page 7 of ? unintended error in a 2005 omnibus bill. (See also Background for more.) While omnibus bills are traditionally intended to be non-substantive and non-controversial, the addition of the word "post-offer" to one, but not both, of the provisions relating to the payment of litigant costs, has had a very substantive effect. As explained by co-sponsor Consumer Attorneys of California: [ . . . ] This disparity in application of CCP [Sec.] 998 can have a very negative effect even in cases that never go to trial. Under current law, if a plaintiff rejects a [Sec.] 998 offer to compromise and does not receive a more favorable result at trial, the court may order the plaintiff to pay for all of the defendant's expert costs both before and after the offer was made. However, if a defendant rejects a [Sec.] 998 offer and fails to achieve a more favorable result at trial, the language of the statute provides that defendant only has to pay for the plaintiff's postoffer expert costs. This places more pressure on the plaintiff to settle while also creating an incentive for defendants to prolong the case until substantial expert costs have been incurred because the statutory penalty is not tied to the timing of the offer. AB 1141 would correct the inadvertent legislative oversight and inequity of 998 offers on plaintiffs [ . . . ]. In support, the Conference of California Bar Associations writes: There is no apparent reason for [the current] inequity, nor does it comport with the purpose of the statute, which is to encourage parties to accept reasonable offers to compromise by cutting off the non-accepting party's right to recover postoffer costs and allowing the offering party to recover expert fees incurred in having to proceed forward with trial. To the contrary, the section creates an incentive for a defendant to delay service of a statutory offer until substantial expert costs have been incurred because the penal nature of the statute is not tied to the timing of the offer. [ . . . ] This bill will enable the statute to work the way it was intended, providing equal incentive to both parties to make offers to compromise and equal penalty if they refuse a compromise offer and fail to do better at trial. AB 1141 (Chau) Page 8 of ? 3. Bill reenacts summary adjudication provisions that inadvertently sunset on January 1, 2015 As noted in the Background, certain provisions allowing for parties to make a motion for the summary adjudication of issues in a matter, upon stipulation of the parties and determination by the court that the motion would further interests of judicial economy were unintentionally allowed to sunset on January 1, 2015. As explained by co-sponsor California Defense Counsel: [ . . . ] Language negotiated several years ago between plaintiffs, defense and judges permits the filing of motions for summary adjudication of issues, even when those issues would not completely dispose of a cause of action, but only where the plaintiff, defense and judge agree that resolution of the issue through summary adjudication would increase the chances of settlement or reduce the length of a trial. In other words, the summary adjudication issue is by stipulation only. This summary adjudication language inadvertently sunsetted at the end of the 2014 and the language in AB 1141 restores the prior language in its entirety. The provision helps contribute to judicial economy and efficiency, so important in our currently overburdened civil courts. In support, Judicial Council of California concurs that "[t]he partial summary adjudication scheme is designed for cases where both the parties and the court agree that such motions will enhance judicial economy and/or help promote settlements. It represents an innovative and flexible approach to motion practice that, in appropriate cases, may serve to speed up final resolution of the case while at the same time guarding against unnecessary delays by allowing the court to control its use." As a matter of public policy, given the challenges faced by the courts under continued budget constraints and the resulting delays in civil litigation, it is important this state find and increase court efficiencies and help trials progress more expeditiously. This bill would appear to be in line with that objective by reinstating these summary adjudication provisions that were allowed to lapse. AB 1141 (Chau) Page 9 of ? 4. Opposition to prior version of the bill The prior version of this bill would have removed the word "post-offer" from the Section 998 provision that currently limits the defendant's responsibility to pay the plaintiff's post-offer expert witness costs, so that both defendants and plaintiffs, alike, could be ordered to pay the other party's pre- and post-offer expert witness costs as a result of rejecting a settlement offer that was more favorable than the award actually received at trial. That portion of the bill received opposition from: American Insurance Association; Association of California Insurance Companies; California Building Industry Association; California Chamber of Commerce; Civil Justice Association of California; Cooperative of American Physicians; Personal Insurance Federation of California; The Doctors Company. (Those same organizations, however, also write in support the summary adjudication provisions of the bill.) As reflected in the June 3, 2015 version of this bill, in response to those concerns, the co-sponsors have amended the bill to achieve equity, instead, by inserting the post-offer limitation into both provisions, so that both plaintiffs and defendants, alike, can only be ordered to pay their opposing party's post-offer expert witness costs. As a result of those amendments, the opposition has indicated that they are now neutral on the Section 998 portion of the bill. Support : American Insurance Association (with respect to Section 437c summary adjudication provisions only); Association of California Insurance Companies (with respect to Section 437c summary adjudication provisions only); California Building Industry Association (with respect to Section 437c summary adjudication provisions only); California Chamber of Commerce (with respect to Section 437c summary adjudication provisions only); Civil Justice Association of California (with respect to Section 437c summary adjudication provisions only); Conference of California Bar Associations; Cooperative of American Physicians (with respect to Section 437c summary adjudication provisions only); Judicial Council of California (with respect to Section 437c summary adjudication provisions only; no position on Section 998 provisions); Personal Insurance Federation of California (with respect to Section 437c summary adjudication provisions only); The Doctors Company (with respect AB 1141 (Chau) Page 10 of ? to Section 437c summary adjudication provisions only) Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : California Defense Counsel; Consumer Attorneys of California Related Pending Legislation : None Known Prior Legislation : SB 384, (Evans, Ch. 419, Stats. 2011) See Background AB 1742 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 706, Stats. 2005) See Background Prior Vote : Assembly Floor (Ayes 48, Noes 29) Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 1) **************