BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 384 (Evans)
As Amended April 25, 2011
Hearing Date: May 3, 2011
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
BCP
SUBJECT
Courts
DESCRIPTION
This bill would allow a motion for summary adjudication of a
legal issue or claim for damages (other than punitive damages)
that does not completely dispose of a cause of action,
affirmative defense, or an issue of duty, upon the stipulation
of the parties and a prior determination by the court that the
motion will further the interests of judicial economy by
reducing the time required for trial or significantly increasing
the ability of the parties to settle. The bill would also set
forth procedures for filing of the stipulation.
This bill would clarify that existing law requires the payment
of a single complex case fee on behalf of all plaintiffs, as
specified, and make other conforming changes.
BACKGROUND
This bill, co-sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California
and the California Defense Counsel, seeks to enact provisions on
behalf of both the plaintiffs and defense bar related to court
efficiency.
The first provision, on behalf of the California Defense
Counsel, seeks to enact summary adjudication procedures that are
identical to those proposed by AB 2961 (Wayne, 2002). That bill
sought to allow parties to move for the summary adjudication of
an issue that does not completely dispose of the cause of
action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty. AB 2961 required
(more)
SB 384 (Evans)
Page 2 of ?
that all parties whose claims or defenses would be put at issue
by the motion agree to summary adjudication, and specified that
the court must determine that the motion will further increase
judicial economy. This bill would enact the summary
adjudication procedures contained in AB 2961; that bill was not
taken up on the Senate Floor in 2002.
The second provision, on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of
California, seeks to address issues relating to complex case
fees. As background, the Judicial Council sent a memorandum in
2004 to all presiding judges and executive officers of the
superior courts to clarify existing law relating to complex case
fees. That memorandum noted that, as applied to plaintiffs,
each plaintiff or group of plaintiffs appearing together must
pay a single complex fee. Despite that memorandum, some courts
have imposed multiple complex fees on plaintiffs in the above
circumstance. The second proposal, would clarify that only a
single complex filing fee is required on behalf of all
plaintiffs, whether filing separately or jointly.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law provides that, in addition to the first
appearance fee, a complex case fee shall be paid to the clerk
at the time of the filing of the first paper if the case is
designated as complex pursuant to the California Rules of
Court. However, the total complex fees collected from all
plaintiffs appearing in a complex case shall not exceed
$10,000. (Gov. Code Sec. 70616(a).)
Existing law provides that, in addition to the first
appearance fee, a complex case fee shall be paid on behalf of
each defendant, intervenor, respondent, or adverse party,
whether filing separately or jointly, at the time that party
files its first paper in a case if the case is designated or
counterdesignated as complex pursuant to the California Rules
of Court. That additional complex fee shall be charged to
each defendant, intervenor, respondent, or adverse party
appearing in the case, but the total complex fees collected
for all of those parties shall not exceed $10,000. (Gov. Code
Sec. 70616(b).)
This bill would require the payment of a single complex case
fee on behalf of all plaintiffs, as specified, and would make
other conforming changes.
SB 384 (Evans)
Page 3 of ?
This bill would provide that the above changes do not
constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
2. Existing law provides that a party may move for summary
adjudication in any action or proceeding if it is contended
that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to
the action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(f).)
Existing law provides that a motion for summary adjudication
shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of
action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an
issue of duty. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(f).)
This bill would authorize a motion for summary adjudication of
a legal issue or a claim of damages other than punitive
damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action,
an affirmative defense, or an issue of duty, if brought upon
stipulation of all the parties whose claims or defenses are
put at issue by the motion, and if the court determines that
the motion will further interests of judicial economy, as
specified.
The bill would enact related procedures for the filing of the
motion. (See Comment 2.)
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author states that this compromise court efficiency bill
seeks to enact provisions mutually agreed upon by both the
plaintiff and defense bar. The bill currently contains one
provision from the Consumer Attorneys of California to clarify
the complex case fee that must be paid by plaintiffs, and one
provision from the California Defense Counsel to provide for the
summary adjudication of a legal issue or claim if all parties
and the court consent.
2. Summary adjudication
As noted above, this bill contains provisions from both the
plaintiffs and defense bar relating to court efficiency. This
provision, sponsored by the California Defense Counsel, seeks to
permit a motion for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a
claim for damages (other than punitive damages) that does not
completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or
SB 384 (Evans)
Page 4 of ?
an issue of duty. That motion may only be brought upon
stipulation by all parties whose claims or defenses are put at
issue by a motion, and where the court has previously determined
that the motion will further interests of judicial economy.
This provision is identical to AB 2961 (Wayne, 2002), prior to
amendments taken in this Committee to strip the bill down to
intent language.
a. Background on summary adjudication
Twenty-one years ago, the Legislature enacted SB 2594
(Robbins, Chapter 1561, Statutes of 1990) to eliminate the
ability of parties to move for summary adjudication of issues
unless the motion completely disposed of a cause of action or
affirmative defense. The sponsors, the California Judges
Association (CJA), argued that it was a waste of court time to
attempt to resolve issues if the resolution of those issues
will not result in summary adjudication of a cause of action
or affirmative defense. Since the cause of action must still
be tried, the court will reconsider much of the same evidence
at the time of trial.
That measure was supported by the then California Trial
Lawyers Association and opposed by the California Association
of Insurance Companies (CAIC). CAIC argued unsuccessfully for
an amendment that would continue to allow summary adjudication
of legal issues. Though resolution of the legal issue would
not dispose of the entire cause of action, CAIC argued that it
would nonetheless simplify the cause of action and reduce the
complexity of the litigation.
To a small degree, this bill would reverse the Legislature's
decision in 1990 by allowing a motion for summary adjudication
of a legal issue or claim for damages (other than punitive
damages) that will not be completely dispositive on that issue
or claim. However, the significant distinguishing feature of
this proposal is that it would require the consent and
stipulation of all the parties and the court as a
pre-condition for the motion being filed.
b. Procedure for bringing a motion
First, the parties whose claims or defense are at issue would
submit to the court a joint stipulation setting forth the
issues to be adjudicated, with a declaration from each
stipulating party demonstrating that a ruling on the motion
SB 384 (Evans)
Page 5 of ?
will further the interests of judicial economy by reducing the
time to be consumed at trial or by significantly increasing
the likelihood of settlement.
Next, within fifteen days of receiving the stipulations and
declarations, the court would be required to notify the
submitting parties as to whether the motion may be filed. If
the court does not allow the motion to be filed, the parties
may request an informal conference to permit further
evaluation of the stipulations. Upon such a request, the
court would be required to conduct the informal conference.
The California Defense Counsel maintains that because the
parties and the court would have to agree to the filing of a
motion for summary adjudication on a legal issue or claim of
damages, there is no possibility under the bill for either
party to file a motion for purposes of delay or harassment.
Unlike the prior law, one side cannot unilaterally file a
motion for summary adjudication.
c. CAOC not opposed
While CAOC initially supported AB 2961 (Wayne, 2002), this
Committee's analysis of that bill noted that although
"supportive at one time, the Consumer Attorneys of California
have re-evaluated the proposal and now asserts that the bill
would set up a cumbersome and uncertain process that may not
achieve its desired result of speeding the resolution of
cases." Staff notes that CAOC is not currently opposed to
this proposal, and, since the intent of bill is to be a
compromise court efficiency bill, if concerns arise, those
concerns must be addressed or the provision will be removed
and the bill will not proceed unless another, more acceptable,
provision from the defense bar relating to court efficiency is
inserted.
SB 384 (Evans)
Page 6 of ?
d. Author's amendment to add a three year sunset
Consistent with AB 2961, the author offers the following
amendment to add a three-year sunset to this provision so that
it can be re-evaluated by the Legislature in the near future.
Author's amendment:
Add a sunset date of January 1, 2015 to the changes made by
this bill to Section 437c of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Complex civil filing fees
Under existing law, a complex case fee must be paid to the court
clerk at the time of filing the first paper if the case has been
designed as complex. That fee is in addition to the first
appearance fee, and existing law limits the total complex case
fees collected from all plaintiffs appearing in a complex case
from exceeding $10,000. To clarify the application of that fee
provision, the Judicial Council issued a Memorandum on January
20, 2004, to all presiding judges and executive officers of the
superior courts that stated:
Each plaintiff or group of plaintiffs appearing together
pays a single complex fee. Thus, only one fee should be
collected from plaintiffs appearing together, regardless of
the number of plaintiffs in the action. Only if plaintiffs
file separate first appearances in a case (which does not
occur in most cases) must each pay a separate complex fee.
The Consumer Attorneys of California, sponsor of this provision,
notes that several courts have charged multiple complex case
fees when only a single complex fee should have been assessed
pursuant to the above memorandum. This proposal would clarify,
in statute, that only a single complex case fee shall be paid on
behalf of all plaintiffs, whether filing separately or jointly,
and make conforming changes to implement that clarification.
The California Defense Counsel does not object to this
clarification.
Staff notes that this provision includes language stating that
it is declaratory of existing law that seeks to reinforce the
validity of the Judicial Council memorandum. Absent a statement
that the above changes are declaratory of existing law, the act
of codifying the proposed clarification could have the
unintended consequence of calling into question the practice of
SB 384 (Evans)
Page 7 of ?
superior courts who followed the Judicial Council's memorandum.
Support : None Known
Opposition : None Known
SB 384 (Evans)
Page 8 of ?
HISTORY
Source : Consumer Attorneys of California; California Defense
Counsel
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : AB 2961 (Wayne, 2002), see Comment 2.
**************