BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 384
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   July 6, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                     SB 384 (Evans) - As Amended:  May 10, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                              
          JudiciaryVote:10-0 (Consent)

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill:

          1)Requires the payment of a single complex case fee on behalf of 
            all plaintiffs, as specified, makes other conforming changes, 
            and states these changes are declaratory of existing law.

          2)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 
            either 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.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Minor revenue loss to the trial courts.  According to Judicial 
          Council, at most, a few courts statewide are charging multiple 
          complex case fees when only a single fee should be assessed 
          pursuant to a 2004 council memorandum. The additional revenue 
          resulting from these inconsistencies, which the courts should 
          not now be collecting, will, consistent with current law, no 
          longer be collected under this bill.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  . This bill, which is co-sponsored by the Consumer 
            Attorneys of California (CAOC) and the California Defense 
            Counsel, enacts provisions on behalf of both the plaintiffs 








                                                                  SB 384
                                                                  Page  2

            and defense bar related to court efficiency.

           2)Complex Case 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. 
             The Judicial Council issued a memorandum in January 2004 to 
            clarify application of this statute. This bill clarifies the 
            statute consistent with the council's memorandum and current 
            practice in all but a few courts.

           3)Summary Adjudication  . SB 2594 (Robbins)/Chapter 1561 of 1990 
            eliminated 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 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 
            would still have to reconsider much of the same evidence at 
            the time of trial.)

            This bill allows 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. The 
            significant distinguishing feature of this proposal, however, 
            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.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081