BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2284
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2284 (Evans)
As Amended August 18, 2010
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |74-0 |(April 22, |SENATE: |31-0 |(August 20, |
| | |2010) | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Establishes, until January 1, 2016, the Expedited Jury
Trial Act, which authorizes a streamlined and consensual,
binding jury trial before a reduced jury panel and a judicial
officer only when the parties voluntarily agree after a dispute
arises and an action has been filed. Specifically, this bill ,
among other things:
1)Requires that any agreement to participate in an expedited
jury trial may be entered into only after a dispute has arisen
and an action has been filed.
2)Requires all parties agreeing to participate in an expedited
jury trial and, if represented, their counsel to sign a
proposed consent order granting an expedited jury trial.
3)Provides that an agreement to participate in an expedited jury
trial is binding on all parties unless: a) all parties
stipulate to end the agreement to participate in the expedited
jury trial; or b) 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.
4)Provides that, except as specifically authorized in the Act,
the implementing rules, or in a consent order authorized
therein, the applicable statutes and rules governing civil
actions apply.
5)Requires a court to approve the use of an expedited jury trial
and any "high/low" agreements or other stipulations in cases
involving: a) An self-represented litigant; or b) A minor, an
incompetent person, or a person for whom a conservator has
AB 2284
Page 2
been appointed.
6)Requires that parties agreeing to an expedited jury trial
submit a carefully specified proposed consent order to the
court, and provides that the court shall 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 shall deny the
proposed consent order in its entirety.
7)Allows the parties to request one additional peremptory
challenge each, which is to be granted by the court as the
interests of justice may require, and prescribes that a jury
may deliberate as long as needed.
8)Provides that the rules of evidence apply in expedited jury
trials, unless the parties stipulate otherwise. 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.
9)Provides for the right to issue subpoenas and notices to
appear to secure the attendance of witnesses or the production
of documents at trial, per existing law.
10)Provides 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.
11)Specifies that, by agreeing to participate in the expedited
jury trial process, the parties 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.
12)Prohibits the court from setting aside any verdict or any
judgment, directing that judgment be entered in favor of a
party entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and ordering a
new trial, except as specified.
13)Restricts parties from making any post-trial motions except
AB 2284
Page 3
motions for a new trial, motions relating to costs and
attorney's fees, motions to correct a judgment for clerical
error, and motions to enforce a judgment. All statutes and
rules governing costs and attorney's fees apply in expedited
jury trials, unless the parties agree otherwise in the consent
order.
14)Requires 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:
a) Additional content of proposed consent orders;
b) Pretrial exchanges and submissions;
c) Pretrial conferences;
d) Time limits for jury selection;
e) Time limits for trial, including presentation of
evidence and argument;
f) Presentation of evidence and testimony; and
g) Any other procedures necessary to implement the
provisions of the Act.
15)Defines various purposes of and terms used in the Act.
The Senate amendments are completely consistent with the measure
that passed the Assembly, filling in various procedural and
technical aspects of this new effort to provide for expedited
jury trials at the parties' option.
EXISTING LAW establishes the right to a trial by jury, and
provides that a jury may be waived in a civil case only pursuant
to specified manners. A jury trial consists of 12 persons,
except that in civil actions and cases of misdemeanor, it may
consist of 12 or any number less than 12, upon which the parties
may agree. It further provides for the review of a judgment or
order in a civil action or proceeding by appeal, and requires
the Judicial Council to prescribe rules for the practice and
procedure on appeal consistent with state law.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill authorized the Judicial
Council to adopt rules of court to establish procedures for
conducting expedited jury trials in civil cases where the
parties stipulate that those rules and procedures shall apply,
including provision for a jury of fewer than 12 members.
AB 2284
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : In support of the measure, the author states:
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.
Sixteen months ago, the Small Civil Cases Working Group, under
the auspices of the Judicial Council's Civil and Small Claims
Advisory Committee, began meeting to determine if there were
options available that would benefit Californians and the
courts. The working group was comprised of representatives
from the courts, attorney organizations, the bar, insurers,
legal aid, business and consumer groups. The working group
examined various options and focused its work on a model
originating in South Carolina.
In the late 1990s, the plaintiff and defense bars in
Charleston County, South Carolina, developed the model after
which this measure is patterned, which is an especially
attractive possibility for smaller civil cases. The bars in
that state came together and established a voluntary,
inexpensive, accessible, and binding "summary jury trial"
program. It uses a reduced-size jury, flexibility including
relaxed rules of evidence, and often involves high/low
agreements on the scope of damages. The Charleston County
model has gained acclaim for its enhancing access to courts,
reducing costs for litigants, and increasing court efficiency.
The model continues to have support from the plaintiff and
defense bars, as well as the court, insurers, and businesses.
Using the Charleston County model as an overlay, the working
group developed the model for AB 2284, which 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
AB 2284
Page 5
savings to the parties, reduces the backlog of civil cases,
and more efficiently manages jury resources. The bill would
also direct the Judicial Council to adopt implementing rules
of court.
The goal of the expedited jury trial in California is to
promote the speedy and economical resolution of cases and
conserve judicial resources. Like the Charleston County
model, participation would be completely voluntary, the
applicable rules of procedure would be flexible, and a reduced
jury size would be employed. The goal would be to complete a
trial in approximately one day. Based on the South Carolina
experience, as well as other jurisdictions that have used
summary jury trials, it is expected that the courts, and
litigants, will see significant cost savings, as well as a
reduction in backlogs of civil cases, and more efficiently
managed jury resources.
When the bill was previously heard in the Assembly, it merely
authorized the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court to
establish procedures for conducting expedited jury trials in
civil cases. Since that time, the working group, in
consultation and collaboration with legislative representatives,
developed this consensus product. The consensus product was
sent out for public comment by the Judicial Council, and
subsequently incorporated those comments that necessitated
change. The original proposal that had been drafted to be
adopted as court rules was appropriately apportioned between the
branches, with the fundamental procedures to implement the
expedited civil jury trial process now proposed in this measure.
Under this approach, the Judicial Council will still develop
rules to provide additional guidance and clarification, but the
bill includes all provisions deemed appropriate for the new
statute.
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0006565