BILL ANALYSIS
ACR 49
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
ACR 49 (Evans) - As Introduced: March 10, 2009
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION: STUDIES
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION BE
AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE STUDY OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED TOPICS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this measure is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This resolution re-authorizes the California Law Revision
Commission (CLRC) to study 21 specified topics previously
authorized or directed for study by the Legislature, for its
report and recommendations to the Legislature. In addition to
21 previously authorized topics, this concurrent resolution
would remove one previously authorized topic (offers of
compromise) from the CLRC's calendar. ACR 49 further requires,
similar to last session's CLRC resolution, that before
commencing work on any project within the list of topics
authorized for study by the Legislature, the Commission shall
submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Chairs
and Vice Chairs of the Committees on Judiciary of the Senate and
Assembly, and if during the course of the project there is a
major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the
change. To help address any future questions pertaining to the
potential merits and downsides of providing the protections of
the Government Tort Claims Act to charter schools, the bill is
being amended at the Committee's request to add just one
additional potential topic of future possible study pertaining
to this issue. There is no known opposition to the measure.
SUMMARY : Authorizes the CLRC to study specific topics.
Specifically, this measure :
1)Re-authorizes the CLRC's study of specified topics (listed
below).
ACR 49
Page 2
2)Removes authority to study the law relating to offers of
compromise.
3)Requires that before commencing work on any project within the
calendar of topics authorized or directed for study by the
Legislature, the Commission shall submit a detailed
description of the scope of work to the Chairs and Vice Chairs
of the Committees on Judiciary of the Senate and Assembly, and
if during the course of the project there is a major change to
the scope of work, submit a description of the change.
EXISTING LAW authorizes the California Law Revision Commission
to study topics approved by concurrent resolution of the
Legislature. (Government Code Section 8293.)
COMMENTS : The California Law Revision Commission was created in
1953 and given the responsibility for a continuing substantive
review of California statutory and decisional law. The
Commission studies the law to discover defects and anachronisms
and recommends legislation to make needed reforms.
The Commission's enabling statute recognizes two types of topics
the Commission is authorized to study: (1) those that the
Commission identifies for study and lists in the Calendar of
Topics that it reports to the Legislature, and (2) those that
the Legislature assigns to the Commission directly, by statute
or concurrent resolution. In the past, the bulk of the
Commission's study topics have come through the first route -
matters identified by the Commission and approved by the
Legislature. Once the Commission identifies a topic for study,
it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by
concurrent resolution, authorizes the Commission to conduct the
study. Direct legislative assignments have become much more
common in recent years. Many of the Commission's recent studies
were directly assigned by the Legislature.
Reauthorization of topics previously authorized for study . The
CLRC currently has a list of 21 topics that the Legislature has
previously authorized for study. This measure would reauthorize
the CLRC to study the following topics:
1.Creditors' Remedies
2.Probate Code
3.Real and Personal Property
4.Family Law
ACR 49
Page 3
5.Discovery in Civil Cases
6.Special Assessments for Public Improvements
7.Rights and Disabilities of Minors and Incompetent Persons
8.Evidence
9.Arbitration
10. Administrative Law
11. Attorney's Fees
12. Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act
13. Trial Court Unification
14. Contract Law
15. Common Interest Developments
16. Legal Malpractice Statutes of Limitation
17. Coordination of Public Records Statutes
18. Criminal Sentencing
19. Subdivision Map Act and Mitigation Fee Act
20. Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act
21. Place of Trial in Civil Cases
Reason for retracting authority to study one previously
authorized topic. This resolution would remove authority to
study the law relating to offers of compromise. In 1975, the
topic of offers of compromise was added to the Commission's
Calendar of Topics, at the request of the Commission. The
Commission was concerned with Code of Civil Procedure Section
998, which calls for an adjustment of costs following the
rejection of an offer of compromise in civil litigation. The
Commission noted ambiguity in the language of the section,
suggesting it did not deal adequately with the problem of a
joint offer to several plaintiffs. That issue has now been
substantially addressed by case law. (See cases collected in
Peterson v. John Crane, Inc., 154 Cal. App. 4th 498, at 505, 65
Cal. Rptr.3d 185 (2007).) Therefore, removal of authorization
is appropriate.
Promotion of communications between the Commission and the
Legislature. The last provision in the resolution (which was
also in last session's resolution) will provide that prior to
commencing work on any project within the list of topics
authorized or directed for study by the Legislature, the CLRC
shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the
Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Committees on Judiciary of the
Senate and Assembly, and if during the course of the project
there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a
description of the change.
ACR 49
Page 4
In light of the generally broad grant of authority to the CLRC
for some of the listed topics, e.g., study and make
recommendations for Probate Code revisions, concern was
expressed that the Commission might undertake on its own
initiative and without legislative input a study that goes
beyond the CLRC's traditional role of studying and developing
recommended non-controversial changes to the law that are
primarily of a cleanup, consolidation, or restatement nature.
Given the limited resources of the Commission which has suffered
budget cuts in past years, early communication to the Senate and
Assembly Judiciary Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs of proposed
topics of study would allow legislative input on whether a
particular proposed topic would likely be controversial and thus
perhaps avoided by the Commission so that it may devote its
limited resources to other, more productive studies.
Proposed Committee Amendment : To help address any future
questions pertaining to the potential merits and downsides of
providing the protections of the Government Tort Claims Act to
charter schools, an issue that has arisen in the Legislature
recently, the author had agreed at the Committee's request to
add the following amendment to the bill:
On page 2, after line 7, insert:
addition of one new topic to its calendar and
On page 4, after line 21, insert:
Resolved, That the Legislature approves for study by the
California Law Revision Commission the new topic listed below:
Analysis of the legal and policy implications of treating a
charter school as a public entity for the purposes of Division
3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government
Code. In conducting this analysis, the California Law Revision
Commission shall not make any recommendation on whether charter
schools should be treated as a public entity for the purposes of
Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the
Government Code; and be it further
Prior Legislation : ACR 35 (Evans), Res. Ch. 100, Stats. 2007
SCR 15 (Morrow), Res. Ch. 1, Stats. of 2006
SCR 42 (Campbell), Res. Ch. 122, Stats. of 2005
SCR 4 (Morrow), Res. Ch. 92, Stats. of 2003
ACR 49
Page 5
ACR 125 (Papan), Res. Ch. 167, Stats. of 2002
ACR 123 (Wayne), Res. Ch. 166, Stats. of 2002
SCR 13 (Morrow), Res. Ch. 78, Stats of 2001
ACR 17 (Wayne), Res. Ch. 81, Stats. of 1999
SCR 65 (Kopp), Res. Ch. 91, Stats. of 1998
SCR 3 (Kopp), Res. Ch. 102, Stats. of 1997
SCR 43 (Kopp), Res. Ch. 38, Stats. of 1996
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Law Revision Commission (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334