BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 384
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 14, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 384 (Evans) - As Amended: May 10, 2011
Proposed Consent
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT : CIVIL ACTIONS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD REVISED CIVIL PROCEDURES THAT INCREASE COURT
EFFICIENCY AND ARE SUPPORTED BY BOTH THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE
DEFENSE BAR BE ENACTED?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial 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. This bill allows,
until January 1, 2015, a motion for summary adjudication of a
legal issue or claim for damages that does not completely
dispose of a cause of action or affirmative defense, 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. This bill also
clarifies when there is only a single payment of a complex case
fee on behalf of all plaintiffs, as required by the Judicial
Council. The bill is supported by the Judicial Council and has
no reported opposition.
SUMMARY : Revises procedures for summary adjudication and
payment of the complex case fee. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes, until January 1, 2015, 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
SB 384
Page 2
determines that the motion will further interests of judicial
economy, as specified. Establishes related procedures for the
filing of the motion.
2)Requires the payment of a single complex case fee on behalf of
all plaintiffs, as specified, and would make other conforming
changes. Provides that the above changes do not constitute a
change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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. Provides that the
total complex fees collected from all plaintiffs appearing in
a complex case shall not exceed $10,000. (Government Code
Section 70616(a).)
2)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
counter-designated 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.
(Government Code Section 70616(b).)
3)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 of Civil Procedure Section 437c(a).)
4)Provides that a party may move for summary adjudication as to
one or more causes of action within an action, one or more
affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one
or more issues of duty, if it is contended that the cause of
action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense,
or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any
cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim
for damages. Provides that a motion for summary adjudication
shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of
SB 384
Page 3
action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an
issue of duty. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(f).)
COMMENTS : This bill, co-sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of
California (CAOC) 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), which was
not taken up on the Senate Floor. 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.
The second provision, on behalf of the CAOC, seeks to address
issues relating to complex case fees. 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.
Summary Adjudication Provision : This provision, sponsored by
the California Defense Counsel, seeks to permit, until January
1, 2015, 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
an issue of duty. That motion may only be brought upon
stipulation of 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.
Background on Summary Adjudication: Twenty-one years ago, the
Legislature enacted SB 2594 (Robbins, Chap. 1561, Stats. 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 sponsor, the
California Judges Association (CJA), argued that it was a waste
SB 384
Page 4
of court time to attempt to resolve issues if the resolution of
those issues does 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. While CAOC had opposed the 2002
measure, AB 2961, CAOC no longer opposes it and is, in fact, a
co-sponsor of the bill.
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.
Procedure for Bringing a Motion: This bill sets forth the
procedure for bringing a summary adjudication motion. First,
the parties whose claims or defense are at issue are required to
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 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 is 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 is required to
conduct the informal conference.
The California Defense Counsel maintains that because the
SB 384
Page 5
parties and the court 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.
Complex Civil Filing Fee Clarification : 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 bill clarifies, in
statute, that only a single complex case fee is to be paid on
behalf of all plaintiffs, whether filing separately or jointly,
and makes conforming changes to implement that clarification.
The California Defense Counsel does not object to this
clarification.
This provision includes language stating that it is declaratory
of existing law, as set out in 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 superior courts which followed the Judicial
Council's memorandum. This clarification prevents such an
undesired result.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
SB 384
Page 6
Support
California Defense Counsel (co-sponsor)
Consumer Attorneys of California (co-sponsor)
Judicial Council
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334