BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 470 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 16, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mark Stone, Chair SB 470 (Jackson) - As Amended May 28, 2015 PROPOSED CONSENT SENATE VOTE: 35-0 SUBJECT: CIVIL ACTIONS: SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION KEY ISSUE: WHEN GRANTING OR DENYING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR A MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, SHOULD A COURT ONLY BE REQUIRED TO RULE ON THOSE OBJECTIONS THAT IT DEEMS MATERIAL TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE MOTION AND SHOULD ALL OTHER OBJECTIONS BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL? SYNOPSIS This non-controversial bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council and the California Judges Association, seeks to reduce and better direct the time and effort trial courts spend in ruling on motions for summary judgment and motions for summary adjudication. The bill codifies two holdings from a 2010 decision by the California Supreme Court, Reid v Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512. First, the bill would allow the court, SB 470 Page 2 when granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication, to only rule on those objections to evidence which it deems material to the disposition of the motion. Under current law, a judge, when considering a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication, must rule on all objections to evidence that are presented with the motion, except those which have been made and sustained by the court. Second, this bill provides that any objection to evidence on which the court does not rule at a hearing for a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication is deemed to be overruled and the issue of the court's ruling on such objection is preserved for appeal. This bill is supported by its co-sponsors, the Judicial Council and the California Judges Association, as well as the Civil Justice Association of California and the California Chamber of Commerce. The supporters argue that this bill will help preserve judicial resources and assist with judicial efficiency without any negative impact on the litigants, or the appellate courts. There is no known opposition to the bill. SUMMARY: Specifies which evidentiary objections a court is required to resolve when ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. Specifically, this bill: 1)Allows a court, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication, to rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. 2)Requires that any objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary adjudication are preserved for appeal. SB 470 Page 3 EXISTING LAW: 1)Requires a 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 the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c (c). All further statutory references are to this code, unless otherwise indicated.) 2)Requires the court to consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except that to which objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence. Also specifies that summary judgment may not be granted by the court based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence, if contradicted by other inferences or evidence, which raise a triable issue as to any material fact. (Section 437c (c).) 3)Requires that a motion for summary adjudication proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Section 437c (f)(2).) 4)Requires the court to grant a motion for summary adjudication only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. (Section 437c (f).) 5)Provides that evidentiary objections not made at the summary hearing shall be deemed waived. (Section 437c (b)(5).) FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal. SB 470 Page 4 COMMENTS: According to the Judicial Council of California, a sponsor of this bill: Published opinions illustrate the large number of objections made in summary judgment papers and the huge volume of motion papers overall. "We recognize that it has become common practice for litigants to flood the trial courts with inconsequential written evidentiary objections, without focusing on those that are critical [footnote omitted]." (Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 532.) In one reported case, the moving papers in support of summary judgment totaled 1,056 pages, plaintiff's opposition was nearly three times as long and included 47 objections to evidence, and the defendants' reply included 764 objections to evidence. (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 249, 250-251, and 254.) The Value of Summary Judgment Rulings. In a motion for summary judgment, the moving party contends that the action has no merit or that there is no applicable defense to the claim asserted. The motion must be supported (or opposed) by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and requests for judicial notice. The supporting papers must include a separate statement, all material facts which the moving party contends are undisputed. Each material fact must be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. (Section 437c (b)(1).) In making a determination of whether the evidence submitted shows that there is no triable issue as to any material fact or no applicable defense to the claim, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, other than 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, or alternatively that there is no applicable defense to the claim, the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and the court must SB 470 Page 5 grant the motion. Either way, when the court decides the motion at this pre-trial stage, the parties are more likely to settle the matter, or shorten the time required for an actual trial. Summary Adjudication Motions. In a summary adjudication motion, the moving party asks the court to rule on the merits of a particular cause of action, affirmative defense, or claim for damages. If the motion is granted, the claim or defense is resolved pre-trial. The type of evidence presented for a summary adjudication motion is the same type of evidence required to be presented in a motion for summary judgment, including affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and requests for judicial notice. If the motion is granted, then the issue raised by the moving party is resolved prior to trial. The remaining matters must still be litigated, but time is saved because fewer issues remain to be resolved at trial. (Section 437c (f)(1).) If the ruling will not be dispositive of the entire cause of action or affirmative defense, the court is not authorized by law to hear the motion for summary adjudication. Prior Confusion Among the Courts is Resolved by the Supreme Court. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Reid v. Google, supra, there was no definite procedure in place for a court, considering an appeal of a lower court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, to interpret the trial court's intentions when a party had made an evidentiary objection in a motion for a summary judgment or summary adjudication but the trial court had failed to rule on the objection. The Reid 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.) To provide a definitive answer, the Reid Court held that "evidentiary objections made 'at the hearing shall [not] be deemed waived'?even if the trial court SB 470 Page 6 fails to rule on them expressly." (Reid v. Google, supra, 50 Cal. 4th at p. 527 [citation to internal quotation omitted].) This Bill Codifies The California Supreme Court Decision in Reid v. Google. This bill codifies the Supreme Court's decision in Reid by clarifying that a court is only required to rule on objections to evidence that it deems material to the actual summary judgment or summary adjudication motion that is before the court. Further, this bill codifies the holding, from that same Supreme Court decision, that any evidentiary objection not ruled on by the court when granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication must be preserved for appellate review. This bill is helpful to judicial economy because pretrial hearing on motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication will be significantly shorter in duration because judges are no longer required to rule on every evidentiary objection that has been presented in the moving papers. Trial courts will have more time to hear cases and handle other matters that are currently backlogged in the courts. The author explains the reason for the bill as follows: 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 or summary adjudication motion papers, but would also avoid any harm to the litigants by preserving their rights on appellate review with respect to any properly raised objections that are not expressly ruled upon by the court. SB 470 Page 7 To reduce the burden on trial courts in ruling on numerous objections to evidence in summary judgment and summary adjudication proceedings, this bill would amend California's summary judgment statute, Section 437c of the Code of Civil Procedure, to expressly authorize trial courts to rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. This bill would specify objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion are preserved for appellate review. In doing so, this bill will save the time of research attorneys and judicial officers without impacting the litigants negatively. 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. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Judicial Council of California writes: Until the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Reid, the effect of a trial court's failure to rule on evidentiary objections that were properly presented was unclear. Some Courts of Appeal had held that objections made in writing were waived if not raised by the objector at the hearing and ruled on by the court. In Reid, at pages 531-532, the court disapproved this prior case law as well as its own prior opinions to the extent that they held the failure of the trial court to rule on objections to summary judgment evidence waived those objections on appeal. The court also held that the trial court must expressly rule on properly presented evidentiary objections, disapproving a contrary procedure outlined in Biljac Assocs. v. First Interstate Bank (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1410, 1419-1420. "[I]f the trial SB 470 Page 8 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, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 534.) Pending Legislation: AB 1141 (Chau) passed out of this Committee and is currently in the Senate. AB 1141, if chaptered, would re-enact the former summary adjudication statute that allowed a court to grant summary adjudication motions to resolve partial issues, without requiring that the entire issue be resolved as a result of the motion. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California Judicial Council (co-sponsor) California Judges Association (co-sponsor) California Chamber of Commerce Civil Justice Association of California Opposition SB 470 Page 9 None on file Analysis Prepared by:Khadijah Hargett / JUD. / (916) 319-2334