BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AB 2284 (Evans)
As Amended June 21, 2010
Hearing Date: June 29, 2010
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TW:jd
SUBJECT
Jury Trials: Rules of Court
DESCRIPTION
This bill would establish the Expedited Jury Trials Act, and
thereunder provide procedures for expedited civil jury trials.
This bill also would require the Judicial Council to adopt rules
and forms, on or before January 1, 2011, to establish uniform
procedures implementing the provisions of the expedited civil
jury trial process.
BACKGROUND
In the late 1990s, the plaintiff and defense bars in Charleston
County, South Carolina, developed a model, labeled the "summary
jury trial program," for expediting jury trials. This summary
jury trial program is voluntary, inexpensive, accessible, and
binding. This program uses a reduced jury size, has flexibility
including relaxed rules of evidence, and often includes high/low
agreements on the scope of damages. The Charleston County model
has gained acclaim for enhancing access to courts, reducing
costs for litigants, and increasing court efficiency. (See
Steven Croley, Summary Jury Trials in Charleston County, South
Carolina, 41 Loy. L. Rev. 1585.)
Using the Charleston County program for guidance, the Judicial
Council's Small Civil Cases Working Group developed a
streamlined method for use in California civil courts. The
Judicial Council prepared a proposal for implementation of an
expedited jury trial. (See Judicial Council Civil and Small
Claims Advisory Committee. Civil Trials: Expedited JuryTrials.
(more)
AB 2284
(Evans)
Page 2 of ?
30 Mar. 2010. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/
invitationstocomment/documents/spr10-16.pdf.)
This bill, sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California and
the California Defense Counsel, would establish the Expedited
Jury Trials Act. This bill would provide procedures for
expedited civil jury trials and require the Judicial Council to
adopt rules and forms, on or before January 1, 2011, to
establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of the
expedited civil jury trial process.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law requires issues of fact regarding the recovery of
specific, real, or personal property, with or without damages,
or for money claimed as due upon contract, or as damages for
breach of contract, or for injuries, to be tried by a jury,
unless a jury trial is waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 592.)
Existing law allows cases in which the demand, exclusive of
interest, or
the value of the property in controversy amounts to $25,000 or
less to be tried as a limited civil case with informal trial
requirements. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 86.)
Existing law restricts limited civil cases to a hearing before a
judge, not a jury. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 116.510.)
Existing law regulates civil jury trial procedure. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 607 et seq.)
Existing law requires a jury to consist of 12 people, unless a
lesser number is agreed upon by the parties in open court.
(Cal. Const. Art. I, Sec. 16; Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 220.)
Existing law allows each party to a civil action a limit of six
peremptory challenges of the jury panel. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
231(c).)
This bill would establish the Expedited Jury Trials Act and
would define "expedited jury trial" to mean a consensual,
binding jury trial before a reduced jury panel and a judicial
officer.
This bill would provide that the rules and procedures applicable
to expedited jury trials do not apply when the parties agree
AB 2284
(Evans)
Page 3 of ?
otherwise as permitted under statute and the court so orders.
This bill would require all parties agreeing to take part in an
expedited jury trial and, if represented, their counsel to sign
a proposed consent order granting an expedited jury trial.
This bill would prescribe that an expedited jury trial agreement
is binding on all parties unless: 1) all parties stipulate to
end the agreement to participate in the expedited jury trial; or
2) the court, on its own motion or at the request of a party by
noticed motion, finds that good cause exists for the action not
to proceed as an expedited jury trial.
This bill would prescribe that any agreement to engage in an
expedited jury trial may be entered into only after a dispute
has arisen and a case has been filed.
This bill would require, for an expedited jury trial involving a
minor, an incompetent person, or a person for whom a conservator
has been appointed, the court to approve the use of an expedited
jury trial and any high/low agreements or other stipulations
before the trial.
This bill would define "high/low agreement" to mean a written
agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties that specifies
a minimum amount of damages that the plaintiff is guaranteed to
receive from the defendant, and a maximum amount of damages that
the defendant will be liable for, regardless of the ultimate
verdict issued by the jury; neither the existence of, nor the
amounts contained in any high/low agreement, may be disclosed to
the jury.
This bill would require parties agreeing to an expedited jury
trial to submit a proposed consent order containing all of the
following:
(1) A preliminary statement that each named party and
any insurance carrier responsible for providing coverage or
defense on behalf of a party, individually identified in
the proposed consent order, has been informed of the rules
and procedures for an expedited jury trial and provided
with a Judicial Council information sheet regarding
expedited jury trials, has agreed to take part in the
expedited jury trial process, and has agreed to all the
specific provisions set forth in the consent order.
AB 2284
(Evans)
Page 4 of ?
(2) The parties' agreement to all of the following:
(a) all parties waive all rights to appeal and to move
for directed verdict or make any post-trial motions,
except as provided by statute;
(b) each side will have up to three hours in which to
present its case;
(c) the jury is to be composed of eight or fewer jurors
with no alternates;
(d) each side will be limited to three peremptory
challenges, unless the court permits an additional
challenge in cases with more than two sides as provided
by statute; and
(e) the trial and pretrial matters will proceed, as
specified, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise
in the proposed consent order, under all other
provisions in this bill and in the implementing rules of
court.
This bill would require the court to issue the consent order as
proposed by the parties, unless the court finds good cause why
the action should not proceed through the expedited jury trial
process, in which case the court may deny the proposed consent
order in its entirety.
This bill would prescribe that juries in expedited jury trial
cases will be composed of eight jurors, unless the parties have
agreed to fewer; no alternates will be selected.
This bill would require the court to allow each side three
peremptory jury challenges; if there are more than two parties
in a case and more than two sides, as determined by the court
under statute, the parties may request one additional peremptory
challenge each, which is to be granted by the court as the
interests of justice may require.
This bill would prescribe that nothing would preclude a jury
from deliberating as long as needed.
This bill would prescribe that rules of evidence apply in
expedited jury trials, unless the parties stipulate otherwise to
relaxed rules. Any stipulation by the parties to use relaxed
rules of evidence may not be construed to eliminate or in any
way affect the right of a witness or party to invoke any
applicable privilege or other law protecting confidentiality.
AB 2284
(Evans)
Page 5 of ?
This bill would prescribe that the right to issue subpoenas and
notices to appear to secure the attendance of witnesses or the
production of documents at trial is as provided by statute.
This bill would prescribe that the verdict, which must be
approved by six of the eight jurors unless the parties agree
otherwise, in an expedited jury trial case is binding, subject
to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations
concerning the amount of the award agreed upon by the parties.
This bill would require the parties to agree to waive any
motions for directed verdicts, motions to set aside the verdict
or any judgment rendered by the jury, or motions for a new trial
on the basis of inadequate or excessive damages.
This bill would prescribe that the court may not set aside any
verdict or any judgment, may not direct that judgment be entered
in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and
may not order a new trial except on the grounds provided under
statute.
This bill would prescribe that, by agreeing to take part in the
expedited jury trial process, the parties agree to waive the
right to bring post-trial motions or to appeal from the
determination of the matter, except as otherwise provided. The
only grounds on which a party may move for a new trial or appeal
are any of the following:
(1) judicial officer misconduct that materially
affected the substantial rights of a party;
(2) misconduct of the jury; or
(3) corruption, fraud, or other undue means employed in
the proceedings of the court, jury, or adverse party in
such a way that either party was prevented from having a
fair expedited jury trial.
This bill would authorize a party to apply for a new trial on
any of the grounds, as specified, within 10 court days of entry
of a jury verdict. If the motion for new trial is denied, the
party may appeal the judgment to the appropriate court with
appellate jurisdiction and seek a new expedited jury trial on
any of the grounds, as specified. Parties to an expedited jury
trial may not appeal on any other ground.
This bill would restrict parties to an expedited jury trial from
making any post-trial motions except for motions to apply for a
AB 2284
(Evans)
Page 6 of ?
new trial and motions relating to costs and attorney's fees.
All statutes and rules governing costs and attorney's fees apply
in expedited jury trials, unless the parties agree otherwise in
the consent order.
This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before
January 1, 2011, to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform
procedures implementing the provisions for expedited jury
trials, including, but not limited to, rules for all of the
following:
(1) additional content of proposed consent orders;
(2) pretrial exchanges and submissions;
(3) pretrial conferences;
(4) time limits for jury selection;
(5) time limits for trial, including presentation of
evidence and argument;
(6) presentation of evidence and testimony; and
(7) any other procedures necessary to implement the
provisions of this chapter.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
The rising costs of litigation presents an ongoing challenge
in providing access to justice for a number of litigants,
especially those with claims involving relatively small
amounts in dispute. Traditional trials can be time consuming
and expensive for both litigants and the courts. Moreover,
for many litigants, alternative dispute resolution has not
proven successful in resolving their cases prior to trial.
AB 2284 would establish the expedited jury trial in California
as a voluntary alternative, streamlined method of handling
civil actions that still allows parties to get their day in
court, provides cost savings to the parties, reduces the
backlog of civil cases, and more efficiently manages jury
resources. The bill would also authorize the Judicial
Council, consistent with its rulemaking authority, to adopt
rules of court.
Consumer Attorneys of California, a co-sponsor of this bill,
writes:
AB 2284
(Evans)
Page 7 of ?
The key feature of [the expedited jury trial] system is that
litigants may participate on a mutually voluntary basis when
it suits the needs of the case. The streamlined jury trial
system could cut litigation costs across the board for
plaintiffs, defendants, insurance carriers, and the courts.
According to a study of the South Carolina system by
University of Michigan Law Professor Steven Croley, the fast
tracked civil trials did not favor plaintiffs or defendants
any more than a traditional trial.
The voluntary streamlined jury trial process gains its
efficiencies in several important areas that contribute to the
rising cost of civil litigation. First, both sides can
stipulate to a high and low range on damages, which guarantees
that plaintiffs get paid a minimum amount and that defendants
can cap their liability. Second, the parties agree to empanel
only eight jurors without alternates rather than twelve with
alternates. Third, the voir dire process would be further
streamlined by using a questionnaire agreed upon by the
parties, by limiting the use of peremptory challenges, and by
allowing the judge to participate. This fast track voir dire
process could help the litigants and the court empanel an
impartial jury in a matter of hours. Fourth, the streamlined
jury trials would not employ a court reporter unless a party
pays that cost. In sum, AB 2284 provides tremendous savings
to all participants in the civil jury trial system by
promoting a fast and fair jury trial and allowing courts to
clear the backlog of civil cases on their docket.
2. Protection for parties entering into agreements for expedited
jury trials
This bill would authorize litigating parties to enter into an
agreement for an expedited jury trial. The overall concern is
making certain that all parties are adequately protected by this
process. One of the touted benefits of the expedited jury
process is the cost savings for all parties. Instead of paying
for several days, and possibly weeks, of traditional jury trial
costs, including expert and attorney fees and costs, parties
will be able to litigate their cases within one day. This may
be particularly attractive to individuals who are representing
themselves.
However, care must be taken to ensure that these parties, who
may be unsophisticated in discovery and trial procedure, are
AB 2284
(Evans)
Page 8 of ?
able to effectively utilize this process. This bill provides
that both parties must consent to an expedited jury trial and
submit their agreement to the court for approval. This judicial
review serves an important function by protecting all parties to
the agreement from unconscionable terms. Should something occur
that substantially affects the ability of a party to bring his
or her case after the agreement is executed and submitted to the
judge, a mechanism also must be in place so that this party may
end the agreement and proceed under a traditional trial.
This bill provides that both parties must stipulate to end the
agreement, unless the judge finds good reason to do so. This
mechanism will protect the unsophisticated litigant and allow
him or her to request judicial review of events occurring after
the agreement but which may be detrimental to the party should
the case go through the expedited jury process. This judicial
check will help maintain fairness to all parties.
3. Benefits of expedited jury trial system
This bill would create an expedited jury trial process through
which litigants can manage their cases. Creating a system
whereby parties can agree on expedited discovery and trial
procedure practices will help reduce fees and costs expended by
each party. The expedited system also would help litigants move
through the trial process faster and obtain resolution of their
disputes more efficiently. Placing limits on the number of
jurists will help both parties cut down on time spent in the
initial phase of the jury trial process, but the system proposed
by this bill also allows parties to agree to use fewer jurists
if they so choose. The provisions of this bill allow for
variances for each case as the parties agree while establishing
an efficient vehicle to move cases through the court system more
proficiently.
4. Sunset
This bill seeks to establish a new method of moving jury trials
through the court system. To make certain this new system is
working effectively, and there are no unintended effects, this
bill should be amended to include a five-year sunset provision.
The Judicial Council has indicated it will provide information
to the Legislature regarding how the expedited jury trial system
is functioning and whether it is having the desired results in
decreasing litigant and court costs while allowing litigants and
courts to efficiently and expeditiously move actions through the
AB 2284
(Evans)
Page 9 of ?
trial court system. The author has agreed to accept this
amendment.
Support : American Insurance Association; Association of
California Insurance Companies; California Chamber of Commerce;
Civil Justice Association of California; Consumers Union;
Judicial Council of California
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Consumer Attorneys of California; California Defense
Counsel
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 74, Noes 0)
**************