BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 384 (Evans)
Hearing Date: 05/23/2011 Amended: 05/10/2011
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Judiciary 5-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 384 would require the payment of a single
complex case fee on behalf of all plaintiffs, as specified. This
bill would also authorize until January 1, 2015, a party to move
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, an affirmative defense, or an issue of duty,
according to specified procedures.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Loss of complex case Unknown; potential fee revenue
lossGeneral*
fee revenue of $100 to $200 annually
Summary of judgement Minor, if any, costs to the
courtsGeneral*
motions
*Trial Court Trust Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Existing law generally requires a $550 fee to be paid by each
party to a civil action at the time of filing its first paper if
the case is designated as a complex case or whenever the case is
determined by the court to be a complex case. Existing law
imposes a limitation of $10,000 on the total amount of fees
collected from all plaintiffs, and the same limitation on the
total amount of fees collected from all defendants, respondents,
and adverse parties appearing in a complex case.
This bill would require the payment of a single complex case fee
on behalf of all plaintiffs, whether filing separately or
jointly. The Judicial Council issued a memorandum in January
2004 to all presiding judges and executive officers of the
superior courts to clarify existing law relating to the
assessment of complex case fees. That memorandum stated:
SB 384 (Evans)
Page 3
"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."
Despite the memorandum, the Judicial Council has indicated a
small number of judges have imposed multiple complex fees on
groups of plaintiffs appearing together. This bill further
removes the existing authority to collect multiple complex fees
for plaintiffs filing
separately, and removes the existing statute specifying the
limitation of $10,000 on the total amount of fees that can be
collected from all plaintiffs, and the fair apportionment among
the plaintiffs for any fees collected in excess of the limit.
Based on data through March 2011, more than $2.1 million in
complex case fee revenue had been collected statewide in
2010-11. The Judicial Council indicates there are a small number
of judges who are currently charging more than one complex case
fee per plaintiff, however, the amount of fees attributable to
those specific judges is unknown. Judicial Council indicates due
to the manner in which data is aggregated, it is unknown how
much of the collected complex case fees are due to
over-charging. Even if only specific to a few judges, the
potential loss of fee revenue would be dependent on the number
of complex cases handled by those specific judges. For a single
complex case, additional fee revenue of $9,450 may be collected
under existing law ($10,000 maximum - $550 single fee = $9,450).
If five to ten percent of collected fees are due to multiple
complex case fee charges, the loss of revenue would be
approximately $100,000 to $200,000 annually, potentially more,
as the $2.1 million in collected fees did not represent a full
year of fee revenues collected.
Existing law permits a party to 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. Under current law, a motion for summary adjudication
is only granted if it completely disposes of a cause of action,
an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of
duty.
SB 384 (Evans)
Page 4
This bill would, until January 1, 2015, authorize a motion for
summary adjudication that does not completely dispose of a cause
of action if all parties agree to summary adjudication, and the
court determines that the motion will further increase judicial
economy by reducing the time required for trial or significantly
increasing the ability of parties to settle the case. The bill
would enact related procedures for the filing of the said
motion.
The Judicial Council indicates that issues will arise, typically
legal rather than factual in nature, whose resolution would
actually contribute to judicial economy. Although the bill
allows for an increased number of summary judgment motions,
these new motions may only be filed upon stipulation of the
parties and a prior determination of the court that the motion
will further the interests of judicial economy by reducing the
time to be consumed at trial or significantly increasing the
ability of the parties to resolve the case by settlement. To the
extent the court does not concur that the motion will enhance
judicial economy, it will not permit the motion to be filed. By
providing for this exception, the Judicial Council indicates the
costs to be minor, if any, for courts to implement this
procedure.
Prior Legislation. AB 2961 (Wayne) 2002 sought to enact the
identical summary of adjudication procedures proposed in this
measure. AB 2961 was keyed non-fiscal and passed out of the
Assembly but was not taken up on the Senate Floor.