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