BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 383| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 383 Author: Wieckowski (D) Amended: 9/2/15 Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/12/15 AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski SENATE FLOOR: 38-0, 5/22/15 (Consent) AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Gaines, Galgiani, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk NO VOTE RECORDED: Fuller ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-20, 9/4/15 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Civil actions: objections to pleadings SOURCE: California Defense Counsel California Judges Association Consumer Attorneys of California DIGEST: This bill, for purposes of most civil actions, generally requires that before filing a demurrer in response to a complaint or cross-complaint, a party must meet and confer with the opposing party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, as specified. This bill also: (1) prohibits a party from amending a complaint or cross-complaint more than three times in response to a demurrer filed before the case is at issue; (2) prohibits a party from demurring to a pleading that SB 383 Page 2 is amended following a sustained demurrer as to any portion of the amended pleading on grounds that could have been raised by the prior demurrer; (3) authorizes a party to amend a pleading after a demurrer is filed but before it is heard by the court if the amended pleading is filed and served before the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer; and (4) authorizes a party to amend a pleading after the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer upon stipulation by the parties. Assembly Amendments (1) exempt certain types of civil actions from the bill's "meet and confer" demurrer requirements; (2) limit the number of times that a complaint or cross-complaint may be amended in response to a demurrer and prior to the case being at-issue, absent an offer as to such additional facts to be pleaded that there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured to state a cause of action; (3) establish other provisions governing the ability of parties to amend a pleading; (4) add a January 1, 2021 sunset date; and (5) make other technical or clarifying changes. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1) Governs objections to pleadings by way of demurrer or answers. 2) Provides that when any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading. Provides that when any ground for objection to a complaint or cross-complaint does not appear on the face of the pleading, the objection may be taken by answer. Allows for a party objecting to a complaint or cross-complaint to demur and answer at the same time. 3) Provides that the party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer specified above, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds, among others: SB 383 Page 3 a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; f) The pleading is "uncertain" (which includes ambiguous and unintelligible); or g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct. 4) Provides that a party against whom an answer has been filed may object, by demurrer as specified above, to the answer upon any one or more of the following grounds: a) The answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense; b) The answer is "uncertain" (which includes ambiguous and unintelligible); or c) Where the answer pleads a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the answer whether the contract is written or oral. 5) Provides that a person against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may, within 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint, demur to the complaint or cross-complaint. Provides that a party who has filed a complaint or cross-complaint may, within 10 days after service of the answer to his pleading, demur to the answer. 6) Permits, under Section 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that any pleading to be amended once by the party of course, and without costs, at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after demurrer and before the trial of the issue of law thereon, by filing the same as amended and serving a copy on the adverse party, and the time in which the adverse party must respond thereto shall be computed from the date of SB 383 Page 4 notice of the amendment. 7) Provides, under Section 472a of the Code of Civil Procedure, that a demurrer is not waived by an answer filed at the same time. Provides that, except as otherwise provided by rule adopted by the Judicial Council, when a demurrer to a complaint or to a cross-complaint is overruled and there is no answer filed, the court shall allow an answer to be filed upon such terms as may be just. If a demurrer to the answer is overruled, the action shall proceed as if no demurrer had been interposed, and the facts alleged in the answer shall be considered as denied to the extent mentioned under specified law. 8) Provides, under Section 472a, that when a demurrer is sustained, the court may grant leave to amend the pleading upon any terms as may be just and shall fix the time within which the amendment or amended pleading shall be filed. When a demurrer is stricken pursuant to speciified law, and there is no answer filed, the court shall allow an answer to be filed on terms that are just. 9) Provides, under Section 472a, that when a motion to strike is granted pursuant to specified law, the court may order that an amendment or amended pleading be filed upon terms it deems proper. When a motion to strike a complaint or cross-complaint, or portion thereof, is denied, the court shall allow the party filing the motion to strike to file an answer. 10)Requires, under Section 472a, that the court allow a pleading to be filed when a motion to dismiss an action pursuant to specified law is denied. This bill: 1) Requires, before filing a demurrer, that the demurring party meet and onfer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. If an amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer SB 383 Page 5 is filed, the responding party is required to meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading. 2) Requires, as part of the meet and confer process, that the demurring party identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies. Requires, in turn, that the party who filed the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer provide legal support for its position that the pleading is legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer could be amended to cure any legal insufficiency. 3) Requires that the parties meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, as specified. 4) Requires the demurring party to file and serve with the demurrer a declaration, as specified. 5) Prohibits a party demurring to a pleading that has been amended after a demurrer to an earlier version of the pleading was sustained from demurring to any portion of the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer on grounds that could have been raised by demurrer to the earlier version of the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer. 6) Provides that if a court sustains a demurrer to one or more causes of action and grants leave to amend, the court may order a conference of the parties before an amended complaint or cross-complaint or a demurrer to an amended complaint or cross-complaint, may be filed, as specied. 7) Exempts the following civil actions from all of the above provisions: (a) an action in which a party not represented by counsel is incarcerated in a local, state, or federal correctional institution; and (b) a proceeding in forcible SB 383 Page 6 entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer. 8) Provides that, in response to a demurrer and prior to the case being at issue, a complaint or cross-complaint shall not be amended more than three times, absent an offer to the trial court as to such additional facts to be pleaded that there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured to state a cause of action. 9) Provides that nothing in the above provisions affects the rights of a party to amend its pleading or respond to an amended pleading after the case is at issue, as specified. 10)Provides that, if a demurrer is overruled as to a cause of action and that cause of action is not further amended, the demurring party preserves its right to appeal after final judgment without filing a further demurrer. 11)Provides that a party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after a demurrer is filed but before the demurrer is heard if the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer. A party may amend the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer after the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer, upon stipulation by the parties. The time for responding to an amended pleading shall be computed from the date of service of the amended pleading. 12)Provides for a January 1, 2021 sunset date for the above provisions. Background For a defendant to a lawsuit, filing a response to the pleading (including complaints and cross-complaints) is the first step in contesting the case and requiring the plaintiff to prove their case at trial. Usually, a defendant has 30 days from receiving service of the filing of the complaint to respond in order to avoid a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Responses can take a variety of forms, depending on the situation, SB 383 Page 7 including: answers, general denial, demurrer, motion to quash, motion to strike, motion to change venue, and cross-complaints. Demurrers, which are the subject of this bill, can generally be filed against a complaint or cross-complaint within 30 days after service upon the defendant. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.40.) An "all or nothing" procedure (i.e. a party cannot demur to a portion of the cause of action), the demurrer may be to the whole complaint or cross-complaint, or to any of the causes of action stated therein; and does not test the evidence or the facts alleged, but rather, tests only the pleading and the sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint as a matter of law. Questions of fact, in other words, are not normally resolvable on demurrer. (See 49A Cal.Jur.3d (2015) Pleadings, Secs. 128-129.) Sections 430.10 through 430.90 of California's Code of Civil Procedure govern demurrers, including the timing and the exclusive grounds upon which a defendant may demure to the complaint or cross complaint. Those sections, by and large, have not been amended since they were enacted in the 1970s. Generally speaking, a party may object by demurrer to the pleading on certain grounds, including: The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; or The pleading is "uncertain" (which includes ambiguous and unintelligible). Recognizing that parties may be able to resolve some of these objections without the involvement of the courts, this bill represents a joint effort by the California Defense Counsel, the Consumer Attorneys of California, and the California Judges Association to add meet and confer requirements to the existing statute authorizing parties to object to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer by a demurrer. SB 383 Page 8 Comments As stated by the author: California's demurrer process for objecting to or challenging pleadings in civil court has historically worked well for parties to litigation, enhancing the quality of litigation between the parties before cases reach court, and improving judicial economy for the courts. Increasingly, some attorneys fail to make common sense, good-faith efforts to resolve conflicts and work out pre-litigation issues, instead choosing to take most or all of the 30 days of time allowed for filing an amended complaint immediately prior to the demurrer hearing, thus wasting court resources. Attorneys may also amend a demurrer one time prior to the demurrer hearing which must usually be held 35 days after the demurrer is filed. Attorneys may use these time periods to delay litigation and harass opponents, incurring high costs. This does not achieve the good-faith, shared goal of producing well-pleaded complaints and documents with the court that accurately reflect the intentions of the parties and ultimately wastes court time and party resources. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: Yes According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, insignificant costs to the courts and Judicial Council, possible minor administrative cost savings if the revised procedures result in fewer court hearings. SUPPORT: (Verified9/4/15) California Defense Counsel (co-source) California Judges Association (co-source) Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source) Alliance of California Judges Judicial Council SB 383 Page 9 Los Angeles Superior Court One individual OPPOSITION: (Verified9/4/15) American Insurance Association Association of California Insurance Companies California Apartment Association California Assisted Living Association California Association of Health Facilities California Bankers Association California Building Industry Association California Chamber of Commerce California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse California Credit Union League California Restaurant Association Civil Justice Association of California Cooperative of American Physicians LeadingAge California Personal Insurance Federation of California Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America TechNet ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The sponsors of this bill, the California Defense Counsel, California Judges Association, and the Consumer Attorneys of California state: In civil litigation, a heavy volume of demurrers are filed with the trial courts. In a majority of cases, the initial demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Delays resulting from overburdened courts have affected civil litigation disproportionately, and the need to address the issues raised by the large volume of these demurrers may hinder finalizing the pleadings, to the detriment of all litigants. If a meet and confer between counsel is a prerequisite to filing to the demurrer, often matters related to the pleadings can be more timely resolved. SB 383 Page 10 SB 383 is intended to provide a simple meet and confer requirement that would require a party to meet and confer with an opposing party before filing a demurrer, and would include, providing a prior good faith attempt had been made, a 30-day extension if needed. SB 383 is a modest proposal that is expected to incrementally improve trial and court-related efficiencies. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of opponents, led by the Civil Justice Association of California, write in opposition to this bill, asserting that it will simply result in further delays to resolving baseless claims, particularly because the bill lacks any mechanism to hold attorneys accountable. Additionally, the opponents write that of significant concern is that a defendant can no longer assert a ground for a possible demurrer if the defendant misses it the first time: "New law may come down during a case or a party may have not included one of several grounds the first time around; however, in either case, like subject matter jurisdiction which can be raised throughout a case, a person should not lose the ability to plead a legal ground that applies to the case. The bill inappropriately lumps special demurrers together with general demurrers, a significant change in the law." ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-20, 9/4/15 AYES: Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Olsen, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Salas, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Williams, Atkins NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Dodd, Beth Gaines, Gatto, Grove, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Mayes, Melendez, Patterson, Steinorth, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Burke, Cooper, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Jones-Sawyer, O'Donnell, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Wood SB 383 Page 11 Prepared by: Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113 9/4/15 18:01:47 **** END ****