BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 470 (Jackson)
Version: February 25, 2015
Hearing Date: April 14, 2015
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Civil actions: summary judgment
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide that a court, in ruling on a motion for
summary judgment, need rule only on those objections to evidence
that it deems material to its disposition of the motion and
would deem any and all objections not ruled upon overruled and
preserved on appeal.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be taken in
Committee.)
BACKGROUND
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. A motion for summary judgment must be
supported or opposed by admissible evidence such as affidavits,
declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories,
depositions, and requests for judicial notice, as appropriate.
In determining whether the papers show that there is no triable
issue as to any material fact, the court must consider all of
the evidence set forth in the papers, except evidence to which
objections have been made and sustained by the court. 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
SB 470 (Jackson)
Page 2 of ?
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. (See Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c.) In short, the purpose of the summary
procedure is to provide a method for prompt disposition of
actions in which there is no triable, material issue of fact on
which evidence shall be taken.
This bill is the product of a proposal recommended by the
Judicial Council's Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee,
Civil and Small Claims Committee and Appellate Advisory
Committee, to reduce the burdens on trial courts associated with
evidentiary objections in summary judgment proceedings.
According to those advisory committees' October 29, 2014 report
to the Judicial Council, advisory committee members (including
both judges and attorneys) report that time and resources
expended in ruling on objections to evidence offered in support
of or in opposition to summary judgment motions are substantial.
(See Report to the Judicial Council, Judicial Council-Sponsored
Legislation: Evidentiary Objections in Summary Judgment
Proceedings (Oct. 29, 2014) (hereinafter, "Report")
[as
of Apr. 4, 2015] p. 2.)
The report cites published opinions that illustrate the large
number of objections made in summary judgment papers and the
huge volume of motion papers in overall. (See Reid v. Google,
Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 532 ["We recognize that it has
become common practice for litigants to flood the trial courts
with inconsequential written evidentiary objection, without
focusing on those that are critical [footnote omitted]."]) The
report specifically cites, as an example, the case of Nazir v.
United Airlines, Inc. (2009) wherein "the moving papers in
support of a summary judgment totaled 1,056 pages, plaintiff's
opposition was nearly three times as long and included 47
objections to evidence, and the defendant's reply included 764
objections to evidence." (Report at pp.2-3, citing 178
Cal.App.4th 243, 249, 250-251 and 254.)
This bill, co-sponsored by the Judicial Council of California
and the California Judges Association, seeks to increase court
efficiency by specifying, consistent with a recent California
Supreme Court case, that the court need rule only on objections
SB 470 (Jackson)
Page 3 of ?
to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the
motion for summary judgment. The bill would also preserve any
and all objections not ruled upon on appeal by deeming those
objections overruled.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes any party, pursuant to a specified
procedure, to move for summary judgment in any action or
proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or
that there is no defense to it and to move for summary
adjudication as to certain issues in the action or proceeding.
Existing law requires the court to grant a motion for summary
judgment if all the papers submitted show 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. In determining
whether the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any
material fact, existing law requires the court to consider all
of the evidence set forth in the papers, except evidence to
which objections have been made and sustained by the court.
(Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(a) and (c).)
Existing law requires that the summary judgment motion be
supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to
interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial
notice shall or may be taken, and that the supporting papers
include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely
all material facts which that the moving party contends are
undisputed, as specified. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(b).)
Existing law, among other things, provides that evidentiary
objections not made at the hearing shall be deemed waived.
(Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(b)(5).)
Existing case law holds that if a trial court fails to rule
expressly on specific evidentiary objections, it is presumed
that the objections have been overruled, the trial court
considered the evidence in ruling on the merits of the summary
judgment motion, and the objections are preserved on appeal.
(Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 534.)
This bill would add a provision to the summary judgment statute
above to specify that the court need rule only on those
objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition
of the motion for summary judgment. This bill would specify
that any and all objections not ruled on are deemed overruled
SB 470 (Jackson)
Page 4 of ?
and preserved on appeal.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author,
Summary judgment motions have become one of the most
time-consuming pre-trial matters that civil courts handle, as
parties on both sides flood the courts with evidentiary
objections. SB 470 is a carefully balanced, court efficiency
proposal that would not only save judges significant amounts
of time and resources when considering huge volumes of summary
judgment motion papers, but would also avoid any harm to the
litigants by preserving their rights on appeal with respect to
any properly raised objections that are not expressly ruled
upon by the court. . . . In turn, by reducing the burdens on
trial courts associated with evidentiary objections in summary
judgment proceedings, this proposal will allow the trial
courts to handle other motions and proceedings more swiftly.
Judicial Council of California and the California Judges
Association, co-sponsors of this bill, add that "[j]udges may
spend hours ruling on evidentiary objections for a single
summary judgment motion. Frequently, the number of objections
that pertain to evidence on which a court relies in determining
whether a triable issue of fact exists is a small subset of the
total number of objections made by the parties." Accordingly,
"[t]o reduce the burden on trial courts in ruling on numerous
objections to evidence in summary judgment proceedings, Code of
Civil Procedure [S]ection 437c would be amended by providing
that a court need rule only on those objections to evidence that
it deems material to its disposition of the summary judgment
motion, and that objections not ruled on are deemed overruled
and preserved on appeal."
2. Bill codifies rule consistent with California Supreme Court
decision
Existing law, Section 437c of the Code of Civil Procedure,
provides that in bringing or opposing a summary judgment motion,
any evidentiary objections not properly made at hearing are
deemed waived. That section also requires the court, in
considering in determining whether the papers show that there is
SB 470 (Jackson)
Page 5 of ?
no triable issue as to any material fact, to consider all of the
evidence set forth in the papers, except evidence to which
objections have been made and sustained by the court. (See Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c, subds. (b)(5), (c), (d).) This bill would
codify a rule, consistent with a recent California Supreme Court
decision detailed below, that would expressly recognize that the
courts need rule only on those objections to evidence that it
deems material to its disposition of a motion for summary
judgment. The bill would deem any objections not ruled upon to
be overruled, thus preserving those objections on appeal.
Prior to 2010 and the California Supreme Court's decision Reid
v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, the effect of a trial
court's failure to rule on evidentiary objections that were
properly presented was unclear. It was also not clear whether
the objection had to be raised at the hearing (as opposed to in
writing before the hearing) in order to be considered properly
presented.
In Reid, the California Supreme Court explained that while the
summary judgment statute requires that the trial court consider
all evidence unless an objection to it has been raised and
sustained, "the subdivision does not mandate that, in the
absence of express rulings, the underlying objections are waived
on appeal." (Id. at 526-527.) "Thus," the court wrote,
"evidentiary objections made 'at the hearing shall [not] be
deemed waived' . . . even if the trial court fails to rule on
them expressly." (Id. at 527.)
As held by the court, "if the trial court fails to rule
expressly on specific evidentiary objections, it is presumed
that the objections have been overruled, the trial court
considered the evidence in ruling on the merits of the summary
judgment motion, and the objections are preserved on appeal."
In rendering its decision, the court disapproved its own
decisions to the extent that they hold that, when a trial court
fails to rule on objections to summary judgment evidence, the
objections are waived and are not preserved on appeal. (Id. at
527, footnote 5.) The Court also disapproved lower court
decisions to the extent that they hold that litigants must raise
written objections orally at the hearing to preserve them on
appeal, or permit the trial court to avoid ruling on specific
evidentiary objections, or otherwise permitted the trial court
to avoid ruling on specific evidentiary decisions. (Id. at 532,
footnotes 7 and 8).
SB 470 (Jackson)
Page 6 of ?
This bill appears to be consistent with the Reid decision and
would remove any lingering questions about the effect of a trial
court's silence in its rulings on properly raised evidentiary
objections. While the bill appropriately leaves intact the
existing requirement that the court consider all objections
(except evidence to which objections have been made and
sustained by the court) in determining whether or not to grant
the motion, it would arguably reduce the time and resources that
courts must spend in rendering decisions on these motions by
recognizing that the court's express rulings need only be on
those objections it deems material to its disposition of the
motion. At the same time, the bill would appear to avoid any
negative impact upon the parties: as long as the parties
properly make an objection at the hearing (either raising the
objection at the hearing, or in writing prior to the hearing),
the objection would be preserved on appeal as though it had been
overruled by the court.
3. Author amendments
The following clarifying author's amendments are to be taken in
Committee to address stakeholder concerns.
Author's amendments :
On page 3, line 38, strike "may, in its discretion" and insert
"need"
On page 3, line 39, strike "made to evidence that is material
to the disposition" and insert "to evidence that it deems
material to its disposition"
On page 4, lines 1-2, strike "Objections to evidence that are
not on for purposes of the motion shall be" and insert "Any
and all objections not ruled on are deemed overruled and"
Support : California Chamber of Commerce
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Judges Association; Judicial Council of
California
SB 470 (Jackson)
Page 7 of ?
Related Pending Legislation : AB 1141 (Chau, 2015), in relevant
part, would reenact and make permanent a sunsetted summary
adjudication provision that allows a motion for summary
adjudication that does not completely dispose of a cause of
action, affirmative defense or issue of duty, if the parties
whose claims or defenses are put at issue by the motion jointly
stipulate as to the issue(s) to be adjudicated and declare that
a ruling on the motion would further the interest of judicial
economy, and if the court grants the motion, having considered
any timely objections made by nonstipulating parties. This bill
is currently set for hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee
on April 21, 2015.
Prior Legislation : None Known
**************