BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 384
Page 1
Date of Hearing: September 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 384 (Evans) - As Amended: September 1, 2011
PROPOSED CONSENT
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT : CIVIL ACTIONS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE ENACT REVISED CIVIL AND
PRE-LITIGATION PROCEDURES THAT SEEK TO LIMIT UNNECCESSARY COURT
WORK LOADS AND INCREASE COURT EFFICIENCY WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND BOTH THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE DEFENSE BARS?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill was previously heard on consent. It
has been re-referred to the Committee for consideration of
equally non-controversial amendments. The measure is jointly
sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California and the
California Defense Counsel, and seeks to enact provisions on
behalf of both the plaintiffs and defense bar to improve court
efficiency. Those provisions, relating to summary judgment and
complex cases, have not changed. The amendments add a new
provision. In a continuing effort to prevent unnecessary
litigation regarding disability access to places of public
accommodation, the bill as amended clarifies that a pre-suit
demand for money regarding a construction-related disability
access claim is required to include the specified existing
written advisory regarding legal rights and obligations
regardless of whether the attorney intends to or does file a
complaint in state or federal court. A violation of this
obligation constitutes cause for the imposition of discipline
against the attorney. There continues to be no known
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
SB 384
Page 2
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 and orders 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.
3)Clarifies that a "demand for money" served by an attorney to a
building owner or tenant containing a construction-related
accessibility claim, which must under existing law include a
written advisory of the owner's or tenant's rights and
obligations, is defined as such whether or not the attorney
intends to file a complaint and whether or not the attorney
eventually files a complaint in state or federal court.
4)Provides that a violation of an attorney's obligation to
include a written advisory of rights and obligations to a
defendant regarding a construction-related accessibility claim
constitutes cause for the imposition of discipline against the
attorney.
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
SB 384
Page 3
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
action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an
issue of duty. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(f).)
5)Requires an attorney, when serving a written demand for money
or a complaint on a defendant for a construction-related
accessibility claim, to include a written advisory to the
defendant of the defendant's rights and obligations, including
specifically the right of a qualified defendant to request a
stay and an early evaluation conference of the allegations in
the complaint. (Civil Code Section 55.3.)
6)Provides for the imposition of discipline against an attorney
for specified wrongs. (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 6016 et
seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, 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 : 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 and work load.
SB 384
Page 4
The first provision, on behalf of 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. The second provision, by the
Consumer Attorneys of California, seeks to address issues
relating to complex case fees by clarify that only a single
complex filing fee is required on behalf of all plaintiffs,
whether filing separately or jointly.
The recent amendments are likewise supported by both sponsors.
In a continuing effort to prevent unnecessary litigation
regarding disability access to places of public accommodation,
the bill clarifies that a pre-suit demand for money regarding a
construction-related disability access claim is required to
include the specified existing written advisory regarding legal
rights and obligations regardless of whether the attorney
intends to file a complaint or does file a complaint in state or
federal court. A violation of this obligation constitutes cause
for the imposition of discipline against the attorney.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Defense Counsel (co-sponsor)
Consumer Attorneys of California (co-sponsor)
Judicial Council
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334