BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1932|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 1932
Author: Jones (R)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/10/14
AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning, Vidak
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 4/7/14 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Appellate court decisions
SOURCE : Conference of California Bar Associations
DIGEST : This bill requires that judgments by the appellate
division of the superior courts contain a brief statement of the
reasons for the judgment and provides that a judgment stating
only "affirmed" or "reversed" is insufficient.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Provides for an appellate division of the superior court
consisting of three judges or, when the Chief Justice finds it
necessary, four judges, in every county and city and county,
as specified.
2.Provides that the appellate division of the superior court has
jurisdiction on appeal in all cases in which an appeal may be
CONTINUED
AB 1932
Page
2
taken to the superior court or the appellate division of the
superior court as provided by law, except where the appeal is
a retrial in the superior court.
3.Provides that the concurrence of two judges of the appellate
division of the superior court shall be necessary to render
the decision in every case in, and to transact any other
business except business that may be done at chambers by the
presiding judge of, the division. The presiding judge shall
convene the appellate division when necessary. The presiding
judge shall also supervise its business and transact any
business that may be done at chambers.
Existing rule of court provides that appellate division judges
are not generally required to write opinions in any case decided
by them, but may do so whenever they deem it advisable or in the
public interest.
This bill requires a judgment of the appellate division in an
appeal to contain a brief statement of the reasons for the
judgment. A judgment stating only "affirmed" or "reversed" is
insufficient.
Background
California law provides for an appellate division in the
superior court of every county and city and county in the state.
Comprised of three judges (or four judges when the Chief
Justice finds it necessary), these courts handle appeals and
petitions for extraordinary writs, such as mandamus,
prohibition, and certiorari, in limited civil cases (civil cases
involving an amount that is $25,000 or less) for their
respective superior courts. These appellate divisions are to be
distinguished from the District Courts of Appeal which are
divided into six appellate districts across the state and handle
appeals from the decisions of the trial courts that fall within
their respective districts in unlimited civil cases (such as
civil cases involving an amount over $25,000 and family law
cases) and also decide certain cases that do not start in the
superior court and instead must be filed at the Court of Appeal
(such as petitions for extraordinary writs, such as mandamus,
prohibition, and certiorari, in unlimited civil cases).
Under current California Rules of Court, appellate division
CONTINUED
AB 1932
Page
3
judges are not generally required to write opinions in any case
decided by them, but may do so whenever they deem it advisable
or in the public interest.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/11/14)
Conference of California Bar Associations (source)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors
Civil Justice Association of California
National Federation of Independent Businesses
State Farm Mutual Insurance Company
Western Center on Law and Poverty
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Appellate divisions hear appeals from limited civil cases as
well as infraction and misdemeanor criminal matters. Under
current law, there are no requirements that appellate
divisions set forth reasons for their decision. This has
resulted in many courts issuing decisions saying simply
"Affirmed" or "Reversed," without any suggestion of the
court's reasoning.
The issuance of one-word decisions by appellate divisions does
not inspire confidence in these appeals because the litigants,
a significant number of whom are self-represented, have no
idea how or why the appellate division reached its decision.
Decisions without explanation tend to make these litigants
believe the court did not give them due consideration because
of their self-represented status. While the appeals in
question don't necessarily involve the most serious of cases,
they do have considerable implications for the individuals
involved.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 4/7/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh,
CONTINUED
AB 1932
Page
4
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,
Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell,
Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Maienschein,
Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,
Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez,
Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas,
Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski,
Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Conway, Lowenthal, Vacancy
AL:k 6/12/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED