BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
ACR 49
Assemblymember Evans
As Amended May 19, 2009
Hearing Date: July 1, 2009
KB:jd
SUBJECT
California Law Revision Commission: Studies
DESCRIPTION
This measure, sponsored by the California Law Revision
Commission, would authorize the commission to study whether
specified laws should be revised, authorize the commission to
study the legal and policy implications of treating a charter
school as a public entity for the purposes of the Tort Claims
Act, and authorize removal of one topic from the calendar of the
commission.
BACKGROUND
The California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) was created in
1953 and tasked with the responsibility for a continuing
substantive review of California statutory and decisional law.
The CLRC studies the law in order to discover defects and make
related recommendations to the Legislature for 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
(more)
ACR 49 (Evans)
Page 2 of ?
common in recent years, and many of the Commission's recent
studies were directly assigned by the Legislature.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes the California Law Revision Commission
to study topics approved by concurrent resolution of the
Legislature. (Gov. Code Sec. 8293.)
This measure would reauthorize the CLRC's study of specified
topics.
This measure would authorize the commission to study the legal
and policy implications of treating a charter school as a public
entity for the purposes of the Tort Claims Act.
This measure would remove the CLRC's authority to study the law
relating to offers of compromise.
This measure would require that before commencing work on any
project within the calendar 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.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
ACR 49 is the annual concurrent resolution authorizing the
CLRC's study of selected topics. According to the sponsor, ACR
49 would continue the CLRC's existing study authority of 21
specific topics, and delete the authorization of one topic which
has now been substantially addressed by case law. ACR 49 would
also add authorization to study the legal and policy
implications of treating a charter school as a public entity for
the purposes of the Tort Claims Act.
2. Reauthorization of topics previously authorized for
study
The CLRC currently has a list of twenty-one topics that the
Legislature has previously authorized for study. This measure
would reauthorize the CLRC to study the following topics:
Creditors' Remedies; Probate Code; Real and Personal Property;
ACR 49 (Evans)
Page 3 of ?
Family Law; Discovery in Civil Cases; Special Assessments for
Public Improvements; Rights and Disabilities of Minors and
Incompetent Persons; Evidence; Arbitration; Administrative Law;
Attorney's Fees; Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association
Act; Trial Court Unification; Contract Law; Common Interest
Developments; Legal Malpractice Statutes of Limitation;
Coordination of Public Records Statutes; Criminal Sentencing;
Subdivision Map Act and Mitigation Fee Act; Uniform Statute and
Rule Construction Act; and Place of Trial in Civil Cases.
3. Removal of authority to study offers of compromise
This measure would remove authority to study the law relating to
offers of compromise. In 1975, the topic of offers of
compromise was added to the Calendar of Topics at the request of
the CLRC. The CLRC 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 Peterson v. John
Crane, Inc., (2007) 154 Cal. App.4th 498, at 505 (holding that
plaintiff was not three plaintiffs for purposes of Section 998
merely because she sued in three different capacities and that a
party, within the meaning of Section 998, was a person, not a
cause of action or a legal capacity).) Accordingly, removal of
authorization is arguably appropriate.
4. Authorization to study charter schools as public entities
for the purposes of the Tort Claims Act
An issue has recently arisen in the Legislature as to the
potential merits and consequences of extending the protections
of the Government Tort Claims Act (TCA) to charter schools.
This measure would authorize the CLRC to study the legal and
policy implications of treating a charter school as a public
entity for the purposes of the TCA. This measure would further
provide that, in conducting this analysis, the CLRC shall not
make any recommendation on whether charter schools should be
treated as a public entity for the purposes the TCA. A neutral
report which discusses these issues in depth should prove useful
to the Legislature in determining whether it should specifically
grant "public entity" status to charter schools under the TCA.
The Legislature must carefully consider whether the benefits to
the public outweigh the burden to injured victims who must
ACR 49 (Evans)
Page 4 of ?
surmount additional, perhaps unknown hurdles, which leave them
without legal recourse for their injuries. In this respect,
submission of this matter to the CLRC for further study prior to
legislative action is arguably the prudent first step in
addressing this issue.
5. Promotion of increased communication between the CLRC and the
Legislature
This measure would 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.
The 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 is consistent with what has been authorized.
Support : None Known
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Law Revision Commission
Related Pending Legislation : SB 108 (Walters) as introduced
would have authorized the CLRC to submit a report to the
Legislature that addresses the question of whether charter
schools should be added to the list of public agencies covered
by the TCA. This bill was amended to contain different subject
matter.
Prior Legislation :
AB 1866 (Walters, 2008) would have required the CLRC to submit a
report to the Legislature, on or before March 1, 2009, that
would include a description of the policy purposes of existing
statute concerning government tort liability and the possible
consequences of adding charter schools to the list of public
ACR 49 (Evans)
Page 5 of ?
agencies covered by those statutes. This bill was held in
Senate Appropriations.
The following is a list of the prior annual authorizing
resolutions for the CLRC:
ACR 35 (Evans, Res. Ch. 100, Stats. 2007)
SCR 15 (Morrow, Res. Ch. 1, Stats. 2006)
SCR 42 (Campbell, Ch. 122, Stats. 2005)
SCR 4 (Morrow, Res. Ch. 92, Stats. 2003)
ACR 123 (Wayne, Res. Ch. 166, Stats. 2002)
SCR 13 (Morrow, Res. Ch. 78, Stats 2001)
ACR 17 (Wayne, Res. Ch. 81, Stats. 1999)
SCR 65 (Kopp, Res. Ch. 91, Stats. 1998)
SCR 3 (Kopp, Res. Ch. 102, Stats. 1997)
SCR 43 (Kopp, Res. Ch. 38, Stats. 1996)
Prior Vote :
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0)
**************