BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 384|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 384
Author: Evans (D)
Amended: 9/1/11
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 05/03/11
AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 05/26/11
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley,
Price, Runner, Steinberg
SENATE FLOOR : 39-0, 06/02/11 (Consent)
AYES: Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon,
Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Dutton,
Emmerson, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman,
Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio,
Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Walters, Wolk,
Wright, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 09/08/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Civil actions
SOURCE : Consumer Attorneys of California
California Defense Counsel
DIGEST : This bill, until January 1, 2015, allows a
CONTINUED
SB 384
Page
2
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 clarifies that existing law
requires the payment of a single complex case fee on behalf
of all plaintiffs, as specified, and make other conforming
changes.
Assembly Amendments : (1) provide that a "demand for money"
provided by an attorney to a building owner or tenant
containing a construction-related accessibility claim,
which must 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
of federal court, (2) provide that a violation of an
attorney's requirement to include a written advisory to a
defendant of the defendant's rights and obligations, when
providing a written demand for money or serving a complaint
on the defendant for a construction-related accessibility
claim, constitutes cause for the imposition of discipline
on the attorney, (3) require, among other things, that
before a motion for summary adjudication of a legal issue
or a claim of damages that does not completely dispose of a
cause of action, an affirmative defense, or an issue of
duty, can be filed, the court must order that the motion
will further interests of judicial economy, as specified.
Establish related procedures for the filing of the motion,
including a provision that allows the court to extend the
time period for making the order if the court has good
cause.
ANALYSIS : 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
CONTINUED
SB 384
Page
3
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 requires the payment of a single complex case fee
on behalf of all plaintiffs, as specified, and would make
other conforming changes.
This bill provides that the above changes do not constitute
a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
Existing law requires an attorney to provide a written
advisory to a building owner or tenant with each demand for
money or complaint for any construction-related
accessibility claim, as specified.
This bill clarifies that the requirement to provide the
written advisory applies whether or not the attorney
intends to file a complaint or eventually files a complaint
in state or federal court, and provides that a violation of
this requirement may also subject the attorney to
disciplinary action.
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).)
CONTINUED
SB 384
Page
4
This bill authorizes 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 enacts related procedures for the filing of the
motion.
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 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 to
strip the bill down to intent language.
This bill specifies that "Demand for money" means a written
document that is provided to a building owner or tenant, or
an agent or employee of a building owner or tenant, that
contains a request for money on the basis of one or more
construction-related accessibility claims whether or not
the attorney intends to file a complaint or eventually
files a complaint in state or federal court.
Background
This bill 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
CONTINUED
SB 384
Page
5
summary adjudication of an issue that does not completely
dispose of the cause of action, affirmative defense, or
issue of duty. AB 2961 required 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 enacts 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Loss of complex case Unknown;
potential fee revenue loss General*
fee revenue of $100 to $200 annually
Summary of judgement Minor, if
any, costs to the courts General*
motions
*Trial Court Trust Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/1/11)
CONTINUED
SB 384
Page
6
Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source)
California Defense Counsel (co-source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 09/08/11
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove,
Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor,
Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande,
Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino,
Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao,
Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell, Nielsen
RJG:nl 9/9/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED