BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 470
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
470 (Jackson)
As Amended July 9, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 35-0
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+-----------------------+---------------------|
|Judiciary |10-0 |Mark Stone, Wagner, | |
| | |Alejo, Chau, Chiu, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Maienschein, | |
| | |O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
SB 470
Page 2
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.
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.
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.
3)Requires that a motion for summary adjudication proceed in all
procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment.
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.
SB 470
Page 3
5)Provides that evidentiary objections not made at the summary
hearing shall be deemed waived.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
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.
SB 470
Page 4
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 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. 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 (Reid), 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
SB 470
Page 5
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
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 this 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
SB 470
Page 6
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.
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
437(c) 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.
Analysis Prepared by:
Khadijah Hargett / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN:
0001152
SB 470
Page 7