BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1403
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 3, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1403 (Judiciary) - As Introduced: March 7, 2011
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : CIVIL PROCEDURE: JURY TRIALS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS BE ENACTED TO ENSURE
THAT JURIES ARE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AND THAT JURY AWARDS BE
SUBJECT TO CORRECTION REGARDING REDUCTION OF OR ADDITION TO
DAMAGES?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill seeks to improve civil procedure by strengthening
protections against potential bias among prospective jurors in
order to ensure a fair and impartial jury, and to clarify the
process and deadlines when a court grants a conditional order
for a new trial based on reduction of or addition to a jury's
award of damages. The bill united the California Chamber of
Commerce and the Consumer Attorneys of California in support.
The Judicial Council supports one provision but is not yet in
support of the other although promising discussions continue and
all involved seek consensus. There is no opposition.
SUMMARY : Reforms civil procedure regarding jury trials.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Would require the trial judge to permit liberal and probing
examination of prospective jurors in order to discover
potential bias or prejudice.
2)Would provide that the deadline for acceptance or rejection of
the addition or reduction of damages after a jury award is 30
days from the date the conditional order is issued, if a
deadline is not set forth in the conditional order. The bill
would also provide that failure to respond to the order shall
be deemed a rejection of the addition or reduction of damages,
and a new trial limited to the issue of damages shall be
AB 1403
Page 2
granted automatically. In addition, the bill would require a
party serving an acceptance of a conditionally ordered
addition or reduction of damages to prepare an amended
judgment reflecting the modified judgment amount, as well as
any other uncontested judgment awards.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Existing law requires a trial judge to examine prospective
jurors, and, upon completion of the judge's examination,
grants counsel for each party the right to examine, by oral
and direct questioning, any prospective juror in order to
enable counsel to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges
and challenges for cause. Existing law provides that when
examination is conducted by counsel for the parties, the trial
judge should permit liberal and probing examination calculated
to discover bias or prejudice, as specified.
2)Authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, in any civil
action where after trial by jury an order granting a new trial
limited to the issue of damages would be proper, to make a
conditional order granting a new trial. If the ground for
granting a new trial is inadequate damages, the order granting
the new trial may be subject to the condition that the motion
for a new trial is denied if the party against whom the
verdict has been rendered consents to an increased verdict, as
specified. If the ground for granting a new trial is
excessive damages, the order granting the new trial may be
subject to the condition that the motion for a new trial is
denied if the party in whose favor the verdict has been
rendered consents to a reduction of the verdict, as specified.
COMMENTS : This bill unites the California Chamber of Commerce
and the Consumer Attorneys of California in the cause of civil
procedure reform regarding jury trials.
The California Chamber of Commerce argues that the bill provides
clarity in the Code of Civil Procedure as it relates to an order
granting a new trial based on inadequate or excessive damages.
"Under current law, judges are not required to establish a
deadline for parties to respond to a conditional order for a new
trial. This is the situation when a party to civil litigation
moves for a new trial because it feels the jury has returned an
inadequate or excessive damage award. A judge may grant the
order, but condition it upon acceptance of a modified award.
AB 1403
Page 3
Under current law, if the judge does not voluntarily include a
deadline for a response in the conditional order, one party can
unnecessarily delay resolution of a dispute and/or the
commencement of a new trial. AB 1403 provides clarity in this
area, and will expedite resolution of legal disputes by
establishing a default deadline in the absence of one being set
by the judge. Specifically, Section 2 of the bill proposes to
amend the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 662.5, to establish a
default deadline of 30 days for a party to respond to a
conditional order for a new trial, should the judge fail to set
a deadline in the order. In addition, the section would make
clear that a failure to respond by the deadline will be deemed a
rejection of the offer, triggering a new trial on the issue of
damages. By establishing a 30-day deadline to respond, AB 1403
insures that these matters will be dealt with expeditiously, and
that the opposing party will have time to appeal, if they so
choose, once the conditional offer has been accepted or
rejected.
The Consumer Attorneys of California also supports the bill,
emphasizing the need to improve the process for examination of
prospective jurors. "AB 1403 would address the issue of
unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions on attorney voir dire of
potential members of a jury. We join with our colleagues in the
defense bar in the belief that liberal and probing voir dire is
necessary to ensure that the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial
is meaningful. Based upon an informal survey of our statewide
membership, it is estimated that at least one-third of the trial
courts impose what are considered to be unreasonable limitations
on attorney-conducted voir dire. At the time of its passage,
the law was intended to prohibit these limitations, but its
enforcement has eroded over time, and it is now time for the
statute to be updated and modernized. Our members have reported
some "local, local rules" where there are arbitrary limits of 30
minutes for voir dire in unlimited civil jurisdiction cases.
This goes directly contrary to the original intent of the
statute. Some other individual judges are denying jury
questionnaires, "rehabilitating" jurors who have already flatly
stated they cannot be impartial, and slowing down voir dire by
failing to provide a list of prospective jurors in the order
they will be called."
CAOC notes that the current language of the bill - changing the
current statutory directive from "should" to "shall" - has not
yet won the endorsement of the Judicial Council, and that
AB 1403
Page 4
discussion on this provision continues.
Author's Proposed Clarifying Amendments. In order to
incorporate new suggestions from the Judicial Council, the
author proposes to amend section 2 of the bill at this time
while discussions continue on section 1, as follows:
662.5. (a) In any civil action where after trial by jury an
order granting a new trial limited to the issue of damages would
be proper, the trial court may in its discretion:
(1) If the ground for granting a new trial is inadequate
damages, make its issue a conditional order granting the new
trial subject to the condition that the motion for a new trial
is denied if unless the party against whom the verdict has been
rendered consents to an the addition of so much thereto damages
in an amount as the court in its independent judgment determines
from the evidence to be fair and reasonable.
(2) If the ground for granting a new trial is excessive
damages, make its issue a conditional order granting the new
trial subject to the condition that the motion for a new trial
is denied if unless the party in whose favor the verdict has
been rendered consents to a the reduction of so much thereof as
damages in an amount the court in its independent judgment
determines from the evidence to be fair and reasonable.
(b) If a deadline for acceptance or rejection of the addition
or reduction of damages is not set forth in the conditional
order, the deadline is 30 days from the date the conditional
order is issued served by the clerk . Failure to respond to the
order in accordance with this section shall be deemed a
rejection of the addition or reduction of damages and a new
trial limited to the issue of damages shall be granted
automatically.
(c) A party filing and serving an acceptance of a
conditionally ordered addition or reduction of damages shall
prepare at the same time serve and submit to the court a
proposed an amended judgment reflecting the modified judgment
amount, as well as any other uncontested judgment awards.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Chamber of Commerce
Consumer Attorneys of California
AB 1403
Page 5
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334