BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1403|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1403
Author: Assembly Judiciary Committee
Amended: 9/2/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 7/5/11
AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-1, 5/19/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Civil actions
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill provides that the deadline for
acceptance or rejection of the addition or reduction of
damages is 30 days from the date the conditional order is
served by the clerk of the court, if a deadline is not set
forth in the conditional order. This bill provides 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 granted
automatically. In addition, a party filing and serving an
acceptance of a conditionally ordered addition or reduction
of damages must concurrently serve and submit to the court
a propose amended judgment reflecting the modified judgment
amount, as well as any other uncontested judgment awards.
This bill provides that a prevailing party could recover
costs for court interpreter fees for a qualified court
interpreter, authorized by the court for an indigent person
CONTINUED
AB 1403
Page
2
as specified, and also makes non-substantive changes to the
existing voir dire statute.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/2/11 address concerns with the
civil jury trial voir dire process, specifically (1)
provide that the trial judge should allow a brief opening
statement by counsel for each party prior to the
commencement of the oral questioning phase of the voir dire
process; (2) prohibit a trial judge from establishing a
blanket policy of a time limit for voir dire; (3) prohibit
the court from arbitrarily or unreasonably refusing to
submit reasonable written questionnaires and will also
provide that where a questionnaire is utilized, the parties
should be given reasonable time to evaluate the responses
to the questionnaires before oral questioning commences;
and (4) provide that the judge in civil trials should
provide the parties with both the alphabetical list and the
list of prospective jurors in the order in which they will
be called in order to help facilitate the jury selection
process.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that 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:
If the ground for granting a new trial is inadequate
damages, make its order granting the new trial subject to
the condition that the motion is denied if the party
against whom the verdict has been rendered consents to an
addition of so much thereto as the court in its
independent judgment determines from the evidence to be
fair and reasonable.
If the ground for granting a new trial is excessive
damages, make its order granting the new trial subject to
the condition that the motion is denied if the party in
whose favor the verdict has been rendered consents to a
reduction of so much thereof as the court in its
independent judgment determines from the evidence to be
fair and reasonable. (Code of Civil Procedure Section
662.5.)
This bill amends those provisions to provide that in any
CONTINUED
AB 1403
Page
3
civil action where after trial by jury an order granting a
new trial limited to the issue of damages will be proper,
the trial court may in its discretion:
If the ground for granting a new trial is inadequate
damages, issue a conditional order granting the new trial
unless the party against whom the verdict has been
rendered consents to the addition of damages in an amount
the court in its independent judgment determines from the
evidence to be fair and reasonable.
If the ground for granting a new trial is excessive
damages, issue a conditional order granting the new trial
unless the party in whose favor the verdict has been
rendered consents to the reduction of so much thereof as
the court in its independent judgment determines form the
evidence to be fair and reasonable.
This bill provides that if a conditional order does not set
forth the deadline for acceptance or rejection of the
addition or reduction of damages, the deadline is 30 days
from the date the conditional order is served by the clerk
of the court. In addition, this bill provides that failure
to respond to the order as specified 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.
This bill requires that a party filing and serving an
acceptance of a conditionally ordered addition or reduction
of damages to concurrently serve and submit to the court a
proposed amended judgment reflecting the modified judgment
amount, as well as any other uncontested judgment awards.
Existing law defines "qualified legal services project" as
either:
A nonprofit project incorporated and operated exclusively
in California that provides as its primary purpose and
function free legal services to indigent persons and that
has quality control procedures approved by the State Bar.
A program operated exclusively in California by a
CONTINUED
AB 1403
Page
4
nonprofit law school accredited by the State Bar that
has:
o Operated for at least two years at a cost of at
least twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per year as an
identifiable law school unit with a primary purpose
and function of providing legal services without
charge to indigent persons.
o Quality control procedures approved by the State
Bar. (Business & Profession Code Section 6213(a)
Existing law defines "indigent person" as a person whose
income is (1) 125 percent or less of the current poverty
threshold established by the United States Office of
Management and Budget, or (2) who is eligible for
Supplemental Security Income or free services under the
Older
Existing law defines "prevailing party" as the party with a
net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a
dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff
nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as
against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief
against that defendant. When any party recovers other than
monetary relief and in situations other than as specified,
the "prevailing party" shall be as determined by the court,
and under those circumstances, the court, in its
discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed may
apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse
sides pursuant to rules adopted as specified. (Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1032(a)(4).)
Existing law provides that except as otherwise provided by
statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of
right to recovery costs in any action or proceeding. (Code
of Civil Procedure Section 1032(a)(5).)
Existing law enumerates the items allowable as costs under
Section 1032, including:
Filing, motion, and jury fees.
Juror food and lodging, as specified.
Taking, video recording, and transcribing necessary
CONTINUED
AB 1403
Page
5
depositions, as specified.
Service of process, as specified.
Expenses of attachment including keepers' fees.
Premiums on necessary surety bonds.
Ordinary witness fees, as specified.
Court report fees as established by statute.
Models and blowups of exhibits and photocopies of
exhibits that may be allowed if they were reasonably
helpful to aid the trier of fact. And
Any other item that is required to be awarded to the
prevailing party pursuant to statute as an incident to
prevailing in the action at trial or on appeal. (Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(a).)
This bill adds to the list above court interpreter fees for
a qualified court interpreter authorized by the court for
an indigent person represented by a qualified legal service
project, as specified.
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 requires
the scope of examination conducted by counsel to be within
the reasonable limits prescribed by the trial judge and
prohibits the imposition of unreasonable or arbitrary time
limits on the examination.
This bill specifies that this prohibition applies to all
cases. This bill provides that the trial judge should
allow a brief opening statement by counsel for each party
prior to the commencement of the oral questioning phase of
the voir dire process. This bill prohibits the trial judge
from establishing a blanket policy of a time limit for voir
dire, and provides that the parties should be given
reasonable time to evaluate the responses to any written
questionnaires, if used, before oral questioning commences.
This bill also provides that the judge in civil trials
should provide the parties with both the alphabetical list
and the list of prospective jurors in the order in which
they will be called.
CONTINUED
AB 1403
Page
6
Existing law provides procedures governing the selection of
a fair and impartial jury in civil jury trials, among which
it provides that specific unreasonable or arbitrary time
limits shall not be imposed. (Code of Civil Procedure
Section 222.5.)
This bill makes a technical, nonsubstantive change to that
provision.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/2/11)
Asian Americans for Civil Rights & Equality
California Chamber of Commerce
Consumer Attorneys of California
Judicial Council
Legal Aid Association of California
One Justice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "�t]his
bill seeks to improve civil procedure by (1) strengthening
protections against potential bias among prospective jurors
in order to ensure a fair and impartial jury; (2)
clarifying 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; and (3) expanding
access to qualified court interpreters by allowing
interpreter costs to be recovered by indigent parties
represented by a qualified legal services program approved
by the State Bar."
The California Chamber of Commerce writes in support of
this bill, and specifically, the provisions on new trials
based on inadequate or excessive damages that, "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. . . . By
establishing this 30-day deadline to respond, AB 1403
�e]nsures 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. AB 1403 will create certainty
CONTINUED
AB 1403
Page
7
and encourage efficiency in this area of civil litigation,
saving the courts and litigants valuable time and money."
Writing in support of the bill's provision on recovery of
costs for court interpreters is the Asian Americans for
Civil Rights & Equality, "The US Census American Community
Survey, which was released in December 2010, indicates that
19.8 percent (6.5 million) of Californians have a limited
proficiency in English. This is an increase of half a
million from 2000. . . . Civil courts govern critical
issues that affect the well being of Californians,
involving areas such as child custody, child support,
housing, and consumer protections. For limited English
proficient individuals, language assistance is needed so
that they can meaningfully access the courts; understand
pleadings, forms or other legal documents; communicate with
clerks or court staff; and participate in court
proceedings. AB 1403 will promote access to the courts by
including court interpreter fees for a qualified court
interpreter who is authorized by the court for an indigent
person represented by a qualified legal services project to
the allowable costs under California �C]ode of Civil
Procedure Section 1033.5(a)."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-1, 5/19/11
AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey,
Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez,
Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. P�rez
NOES: Donnelly
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Halderman,
Ma, Mansoor
CONTINUED
AB 1403
Page
8
RJG:do 9/6/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED