Existing law establishes procedures for conducting expedited jury trials in civil cases where the parties sign a consent order to stipulate that those procedures apply. Pursuant to these procedures, all parties agree that each side has up to 3 hours to present its case and agree to waive all rights to appeal and to move for a directed verdict or to make any posttrial motions, except as provided. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2016.

This bill would modify procedures to provide that each party would have up to 5 hours to complete voir dire and present its case. The bill would require the Judicial Council to update rules and forms relating to these procedures by July 1, 2016. The bill would also delete the January 1, 2016, repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.

Existing law requires that a designated action or special proceeding meeting certain conditions be treated as a limited civil case. Existing law authorizes a limited civil case to be brought in the small claims division if the case is within the jurisdiction of the small claims division as otherwise provided by statute.

The bill would establish procedures for conducting mandatory expedited jury trials in limited civil cases, including provisions for a jury of 8 or few members, with one alternate, and a limit of 5 hours for each side to complete voir dire and to present its case. The bill would authorize either party to opt out of the expedited jury trial procedures if certain requirements are met. The bill would provide that the verdict in an expedited jury trial case may be appealed and is subject to any written high/low agreement, as defined. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt additional rules and uniform procedures, as provided, by July 1, 2016.

The bill would delay the operative date of specified provisions relating to mandatory expedited jury trials until July 1, 2016. The bill would also repeal the provisions relating to mandatory expedited jury trials on July 1, 2019.

Existing law establishes procedures for conducting expedited jury trials in civil cases where the parties sign a consent order to stipulate that those procedures apply. Pursuant to these procedures, all parties agree that each side has up to 3 hours to present its case and agree to waive all rights to appeal and to move for a directed verdict or to make any posttrial motions, except as provided. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2016.

This bill would modify procedures to provide that each party would have up to 5 hours to complete voir dire and present its case. The bill would require the Judicial Council to update rules and forms relating to these procedures by July 1, 2016. The bill would also delete the January 1, 2016, repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.

Existing law requires that a designated action or special proceeding meeting certain conditions be treated as a limited civil case. Existing law authorizes a limited civil case to be brought in the small claims division if the case is within the jurisdiction of the small claims division as otherwise provided by statute.

The bill would establish procedures for conducting mandatory expedited jury trials in limited civil cases, including provisions for a jury of 8 or few members, with one alternate, and a limit of 5 hours for each side to complete voir dire and to present its case. The bill would authorize either party to opt out of the expedited jury trial procedures if certain requirements are met. The bill would provide that the verdict in an expedited jury trial case may be appealed and is subject to any written high/low agreement, as defined. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt additional rules and uniform procedures, as provided, by July 1, 2016.

The bill would delay the operative date of specified provisions relating to mandatory expedited jury trials until July 1, 2016. The bill would also repeal the provisions relating to mandatory expedited jury trials on July 1, 2019.

Existing law establishes procedures for conducting expedited jury trials in civil cases where the parties sign a consent order to stipulate that those procedures apply. Pursuant to these procedures, all parties agree that each side has up to 3 hours to present its case and agree to waive all rights to appeal and to move for a directed verdict or to make any posttrial motions, except as provided. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2016.

This bill would modify procedures to provide that each party would have up to 5 hours to complete voir dire and present its case. The bill would require the Judicial Council to update rules and forms relating to these procedures by July 1, 2016. The bill would also delete the January 1, 2016 2016, repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.

Existing law requires that a designated action or special proceeding meeting certain conditions be treated as a limited civil case. Existing law authorizes a limited civil case to be brought in the small claims division if the case is within the jurisdiction of the small claims division as otherwise provided by statute.

The bill would establish procedures for conducting mandatory expedited jury trials in limited civil cases, including provisions for a jury of 8 or few members, with one alternate, and a limit of 5 hours for each side to complete voir dire and to present its case. The bill would authorize either party to opt out of the expedited jury trial procedures if certain requirements are met. The bill would provide that the verdict in an expedited jury trial case may be appealed and is subject to any written high/low agreement, as defined. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt additional rules and uniform procedures, as provided, by July 1, 2016.

The bill would delay the operative date of specified provisions relating to mandatory expedited jury trials until July 1, 2016. The bill would also repeal the provisions relating to mandatory expedited jury trials on July 1, 2019.

Existing law establishes procedures for conducting expedited jury trials in civil cases where the parties sign a consent order to stipulate that those procedures apply. Pursuant to these procedures, all parties agree that each side has up to 3 hours to present its case and agree to waive all rights to appeal and to move for a directed verdict or to make any posttrial motions, except as provided. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2016.

This bill would modify procedures to provide that each party would have up to 5 hours to complete voir dire and present its case. The bill would require the Judicial Council to update rules and forms relating to these procedures by July 1, 2016. The bill would also delete the January 1, 2016 repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.

Existing law requires that a designated action or special proceeding meeting certain conditions be treated as a limited civil case. Existing law authorizes a limited civil case to be brought in the small claims division if the case is within the jurisdiction of the small claims division as otherwise provided by statute.

The bill would establish procedures for conducting mandatory expedited jury trials in limited civil cases, including provisions for a jury of 8 or few members, with no alternates, one alternate, and a limit of 5 hours for each side to complete voir dire and to present its case. The bill would authorize either party to opt out of the expedited jury trial procedures if certain requirements are met. The bill would provide that the verdict in an expedited jury trial case may be appealed and is subject to any written high/low agreement, as defined. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt additional rules and uniform procedures, as provided, by July 1, 2016.

Existing law establishes procedures for conducting expedited jury trials in civil cases where the parties sign a consent order to stipulate that those procedures apply. Pursuant to these procedures, all parties agree that each side has up to 3 hours to present its case and agree to waive all rights to appeal and to move for a directed verdict or to make any posttrial motions, except as provided. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2016.

This bill would delete that repeal would modify procedures to provide that each party have up to 5 hours to complete voir dire and present its case. The bill would require the Judicial Council to update rules and forms relating to these procedures by July 1, 2016. The bill would also delete the January 1, 2016 repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.

Existing law establishes procedures for conducting expedited jury trials in civil cases where the parties sign a consent order to stipulate that those procedures apply. Pursuant to these procedures, all parties agree to waive all rights to appeal and to move for a directed verdict or to make any posttrial motions, except as provided. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2016.

This bill would delete that repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 555

Author:(Alejo)

As Amended Ver:August 26, 2015

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: JUD.

SUMMARY: Extends the provisions of the Expedited Jury Trials Act indefinitely. Specifically, this bill repeals the January 1, 2016, sunset date of the Expedited Jury Trials Act and adds a new Mandatory Expedited Jury Trial program.

The Senate amendments:

1. Make the Expedited Jury Trial process mandatory for cases where the amount in controversy is less than or equal to $25,000, with certain exceptions.

2. Provide for a six-month delayed implementation date for Judicial Council to develop rules and forms, and a sunset date of July 1, 2019.

3. Specify a time limit of up to five hours for each party to complete voir dire and to present its case;

4. Update the requirement in existing law for Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures to reflect removal of the sunset date; and

5. Eliminate, because of 3) above, the requirement for Judicial Council to adopt rules for time limits for jury selection and presentation of evidence and argument.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, until January 1, 2016, the Expedited Jury Trial Act (Act), which allows an expedited jury trial (EJT) in a civil matter after a dispute has arisen and an action has been filed when all parties agree to participate and, if represented, their respective counsel sign a proposed consent order granting an expedited jury trial.

2. Provides that, except as specifically authorized in the Act, the implementing rules, or in a consent order authorized therein, the applicable statutes and rules governing civil actions apply.

3. Allows the parties to exercise only three peremptory challenges and to request one additional peremptory challenge each, which is to be granted by the court as the interests of justice may require, and prescribes that a jury may deliberate as long as needed.

4. Provides that the rules of evidence apply in expedited jury trials, unless the parties stipulate otherwise.

5. Greatly limits the ability of the parties to obtain post-verdict relief such as directed verdicts, motions to set aside the verdict, or motions for a new trial.

6. Requires the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2011, to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions for expedited jury trials

7. Defines various purposes of and terms used in the Act.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

COMMENTS: The author explains the reason for the bill as follows:

The expedited jury trial (EJT) option was executed in 2011 to help courts deal with overloaded dockets that were the result of major budget cuts and courtroom closures. EJTs are ideal for cases involving smaller dollar amounts that do not involve catastrophic injuries, cases that often affect lower-income workers. These cases are prone to being lost in the system and leaving vulnerable Californians without compensation. The EJT statute is set to sunset January 1, 2016.

Effectiveness of the EJT Program in Streamlining Trial Court Congestion. The goal of the EJT in California has been to promote the speedy and economical resolution of civil cases in order to conserve judicial resources. Participation has been completely voluntary. The applicable rules of procedure have been designed to be flexible and a reduced jury size is employed in the trials. The trials are completed in approximately one day. However, since its January 1, 2011, inception date, this new trial option has not been used as frequently as originally anticipated.

According to an informational report submitted to the Judicial Council on January 30, 2015, 39 of the 58 counties reported data on the use (or non-use) of EJTs in their superior courts from January 1, 2011, to August 31, 2014. Of those 39 counties, 25 reported that no EJTs had been conducted during the reporting period. The 14 remaining counties reported that one or more EJTs were conducted during the reporting period. A compilation of the figures from those 14 counties shows that a total of 156 EJTs were conducted during the entire reporting period. For individual courts, the percentage of EJTs ranged from 2% to 9% of the jury trials conducted during the reporting period.

A Need for Adjustments to the Act’s Existing Provisions by Practitioners. Taking into consideration the small percentage of jury trials which have been conducted pursuant to the EJT program, an informal working group has been formed to discuss how the program could become more attractive to parties and more beneficial to the overburdened court system. The working group consists of many of the same stakeholders who urged enactment of the Expedited Jury Trials Act in 2011. The provisions of this bill are the result of that EJT working group.

According to the sponsor, the Consumer Attorneys of California, the EJT format provides resolution of cases while saving time, expense and court resources.

Analysis Prepared by: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0001753

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 555

Author: Alejo (D)

Amended: 8/26/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 7/14/15

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

NOES: Anderson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Civil actions

SOURCE: California Defense Counsel

Consumer Attorneys of California

DIGEST: This bill renames the existing Expedited Jury Trials Act (hereinafter “EJT Act” or “Act”) as the Voluntary EJT Act and modifies the Act to extend the number of hours for each side to present their case and to repeal the January 1, 2016 sunset date. This bill also establishes the Mandatory EJT Act to make EJTs mandatory for limited civil cases, subject to the right of parties to opt out in certain circumstances, as specified. This bill includes various provisions governing mandatory EJTs, such as provision allowing for a right of appeal, as specified.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/26/15 make technical corrections, including a correction to an internal cross reference.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/24/15 (1) expand the list of circumstances under which either party may opt out of a mandatory EJT to include where: (a) a case has been reclassified as unlimited, as specified; or (b) the complaint contains a demand for attorney’s fees, except as specified; (2) clarify what constitutes “good cause” for a judge to allow the parties to opt out of an otherwise mandatory EJT; (3) delete the definition of “post-trial motion;” (4) increase the number of peremptory challenges from three to four; (5) increase the number of jurors to allow for an alternate; (6) add both a delayed enactment date of July 1, 2016 and a three year sunset to the mandatory EJT provisions of the bill; and (7) make other technical and clarifying changes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the EJT Act, with a January 1, 2016 sunset.

2. Provides that all parties agreeing to participate in an EJT and, if represented, their counsel, must sign a proposed consent order granting an EJT, which must contain, among other things, the parties’ agreement to all of the following:

• That all parties waive all rights to appeal and move for directed verdict or make any post-trial motions, as defined, except as specified;

• That each side shall have up to three hours in which to present its case;

• That the jury shall be composed of eight or fewer jurors with no alternates;

• That each side shall be limited to three peremptory challenges, unless the court permits an additional challenge in specified cases; and

• That the trial and pretrial matters will proceed under the Act’s provisions limiting the ability to appeal, time to present the case, number of jurors, and number of peremptory challenges, and, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise in the proposed consent order, under all other provisions in this Act and implementing rules of court.

3. Provides that the verdict in an EJT case is binding, subject to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations concerning the amount of the award agreed upon by the parties. Provides that a vote of six of the eight jurors is required for a verdict, unless the parties stipulate otherwise.

4. Provides that, except where court approval is required under specified law, the agreement to participate in the EJT process is binding upon the parties, unless: (a) all parties stipulate to end the agreement to participate; or (b) the court, on its own motion or at the request of a party by noticed motion, finds that good cause exists for the action not to proceed under the rules of the Act.

5. Provides that by agreeing to participate in the EJT process, the parties agree to waive any motions for directed verdict, motions to set aside the verdict or any judgment rendered by the jury, or motions for a new trial on the basis of inadequate or excessive damages.

6. Requires court approval for the use of an EJT and any high/low agreements or other stipulations for an EJT involving either: (a) a self-represented litigant; or (b) a minor, an incompetent person, or a person for whom a conservator has been appointed.

7. Specifies that juries in EJT cases shall be composed of eight jurors, unless the parties have agreed to fewer and that no alternates shall be selected.

8. Requires the court to allow each side three peremptory challenges. If there are more than two parties in a case and more than two sides, as determined by the court under specified law, the parties may request one additional challenge each, which the court is to grant as the interests of justice may require.

9. Provides that the rules of evidence apply in EJTs, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, and that the right to issue subpoenas and notices to appear to secure the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents at trial shall be in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.

10. Provides that all statutes and rules governing costs and attorney’s fees shall apply in EJTs, unless the parties agree otherwise in the consent order.

11. Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of this chapter, as specified.

This bill:

1. Extends the time that each party has to present its case in a voluntary EJT to five hours, including time to complete voir dire.

2. Requires the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2016, to update rules and forms and establish uniform procedures implementing the procedures of the EJT Act, as specified.

3. Renames the Act as the Voluntary EJT Act and removes the Act’s January 1, 2016 sunset date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely.

4. Establishes the Mandatory EJT Act to require that an action or special proceeding treated as a limited civil case under existing law be conducted as a mandatory EJT, as specified.

5. Permits either party to opt out of the mandatory EJT procedures if:

• Punitive damages are sought;

• Damages in excess of insurance policy limits are sought;

• A party’s insurer is providing a legal defense subject to a reservation of rights;

• The case involves a claim reportable to a governmental entity;

• The case involves a claim of moral turpitude that may affect an individual’s professional licensing;

• The case involves claims of intentional conduct;

• The case has been reclassified as unlimited pursuant to specified law;

• The complaint contains a demand for attorney’s fees, unless those fees are sought pursuant to Civil Code Section 1717 (allowing for reasonable attorney’s fees in an action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides for the award of attorney’s fees and costs when incurred to enforce that contract); or

• The judge finds good cause exists for the action not to proceed under the mandatory EJT rules. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, a showing that a party needs more than five hours to present or defend the action and that the parties have been unable to stipulate to additional time.

6. Includes various provisions for mandatory EJTs that are identical to existing law for voluntary EJTs. These identical provisions generally relate to:

• The definition of the term “high/low” agreement;

• The cap on the time each party has to present its case, including voir dire;

• The ability of the jury to deliberate as long as needed and the number of jurors required for a verdict;

• The application of the rules of evidence;

• The application of the Code of Civil Procedure for purposes of subpoenas, notices to appear, and the production of documents at trial; and

• The application of all statutes and rules governing costs and attorney’s fees.

7. Includes various provisions for mandatory EJTs that differ from existing law for voluntary EJTs. Specifically, these provisions:

• Allow for an alternate juror for a total of eight jurors and one alternate;

• Allow for four peremptory challenges;

• Provides that a judgment in a limited civil case conducted as an EJT may be appealed , as specified;

• Provide that its procedures and the implementing rules of court shall apply to EJTs conducted in limited civil cases, unless the parties agree otherwise, as specified, and the court so orders. Provide, further, that any matters not expressly addressed by this bill, in the implementing rules of court, or in an agreement authorized by this bill and the implementing rules, are governed by applicable statutes and rules governing civil actions;

• Allow the parties to agree to modify the rules and procedures specified in this bill and the implementing rules of court, subject to the court’s approval;

• Provide that the verdict in a limited civil case following an EJT shall be appealable, as specified, and subject to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations by the parties concerning the amount of the award; and

• Require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2016, to establish uniform procedures implementing the Mandatory EJT Acts, as specified.

8. Includes a July 1, 2016 enactment date and a July 1, 2019 sunset date for the Mandatory EJT Act provisions.

Background

In 2010, following the proposal of a Judicial Council working group, the Legislature enacted AB 2284 (Evans, Chapter 764, Statutes of 2010) to establish the Expedited Jury Trials Act in California. Sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and Consumer Attorneys of California, AB 2284 generally set forth the procedures for the state’s expedited civil jury trial process and required the Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms, as specified, to establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of that process. Under the resulting streamlined process, an EJT, as compared to a regular jury trial, is shorter in length (at three hours total, separate from voir dire), smaller in jury size (with eight as opposed to 12 jurors), and has a faster jury selection process (allowing for only three peremptory challenges per side). Perhaps most importantly, there is no right to an appeal, thereby resulting in finality of the judgment earlier than in many regular jury trials. The Act is currently set to sunset on January 1, 2016.

This bill, sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and the Consumer Attorneys of California, now seeks to repeal the sunset date placed on the voluntary EJT Act in order to extend the Act indefinitely, while also extending the time for each side to present their case from three hours to five hours, including voir dire. Separately, this bill makes EJTs mandatory for civil cases of under $25,000 or less, except as specified, and sets for rules and procedures, accordingly.

Comments

As stated by the author:

The expedited jury trial (EJT) option was enacted in 2011 to help courts deal with overloaded dockets that were the result of major budget cuts and courtroom closures. EJTs are ideal for cases involving smaller dollar amounts that do not involve catastrophic injuries, cases that often affect lower-income workers. These cases are prone to being lost in the system and leaving vulnerable Californians without compensation. The EJT statute is set to sunset January 1, 2016. . . . AB 555 removes the sunset for the current expedited jury trial statutes, provides some procedural fixes [], and creates a new chapter requiring limited civil cases to be conducted as expedited jury trials.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/26/15)

California Defense Counsel (co-source)

Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source)

California Association of Joint Powers Authorities

California Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/26/15)

American Council of Life Insurers

Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Co-sponsor Consumer Attorneys of California writes that:

This bill removes the sunset for the current expedited jury trial statutes and provides some procedural fixes. For example, while both parties are allowed three hours to present their case, judges in different jurisdictions interpret this time requirement differently. Some judges allow EJTs to be held in multiple days, while others do not. Some judges do not include voir dire in this time frame, while others require jury selection and presentation to be complete on the same day. AB 555 allows each party 5 hours to present their case and complete voir dire. This provides parties with ample time to present their case and allows them [to] use their time as they see fit, divided amongst jury selection and case presentation.

Second, in order to provide cases with smaller dollar amounts their day in court, AB 555 adds a new statute creating a Limited Jurisdiction Expedited Jury Trial Act for all limited jurisdiction cases under $25,000. Under this Act the EJT system will be mandatory for limited jurisdiction cases with a series of opt out exceptions. AB 555 also reinstates the right to appeal for limited jurisdiction cases to their respective Superior Court Appellate Division.

Also in support, co-sponsor California Defense Counsel adds:

Despite the pressing need for efficiencies in our civil trial system, and despite the consensus support for the innovations in EJTs, utilization of the model has not been as robust as hoped. There are varying theories as to the cause of this underutilization. It is possible that the timeframes allowed for presenting cases is too short, that voir dire is too limited, and that the lack of appeal rights discourages parties, their counsel and insurers from agreeing to participate.

We believe that it is time to act more aggressively to achieve the efficiencies in expedited jury trials. To that end, AB 555 proposes to make the EJT model mandatory for the first time, but only for a very limited range of cases and with carefully crafted exemptions for certain types of cases where EJT may be inappropriate. [ . . . ]

Working with our colleagues in the plaintiff’s bar, we believe that AB 555 has been carefully constructed to move towards the efficiency promises of expedited jury trials, but with the protections that plaintiffs, defendants and insurers deserve. Given the compelling need [to] utilize extremely limited civil trial resources as efficiently as possible, we believe that a slightly bolder approach is now appropriate.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies and the American Council of Life Insurers write in opposition:

Most insurance companies, like most individuals, would prefer to avoid Jury trials for a number of reasons. If insurers must go to trial, it is usually not be choice so there is usually not much benefit to having expedited rules versus a more deliberative process. As the cost of mandatory expedited trials under $25,000 is high, it can often cost more than what it at issue. Most companies would prefer a reasonable arbitration process, per what is allowed under California law and the contract.

If a case goes before a jury, we do not believe there should be a limitation as to what procedures are available and what inquiries can be made—including time on voir dire, number of jurors and any appeal rights. The award value can be quickly agreed to by both parties in court.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Harper

Prepared by: Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/28/15 8:44:47

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 555

Author: Alejo (D)

Amended: 8/24/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 7/14/15

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

NOES: Anderson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Civil actions

SOURCE: California Defense Counsel

Consumer Attorneys of California

DIGEST: This bill renames the existing Expedited Jury Trials Act (hereinafter “EJT Act” or “Act”) as the Voluntary EJT Act and modifies the Act to extend the number of hours for each side to present their case and to repeal the January 1, 2016 sunset date. This bill also establishes the Mandatory EJT Act to make EJTs mandatory for limited civil cases, subject to the right of parties to opt out in certain circumstances, as specified. This bill includes various provisions governing mandatory EJTs, such as provision allowing for a right of appeal, as specified.

Senate Floor Amendments on 8/24/15 (1) expand the list of circumstances under which either party may opt out of a mandatory EJT to include where: (a) a case has been reclassified as unlimited, as specified; or (b) the complaint contains a demand for attorney’s fees, except as specified; (2) clarify what constitutes “good cause” for a judge to allow the parties to opt out of an otherwise mandatory EJT; (3) delete the definition of “post-trial motion;” (4) increase the number of peremptory challenges from three to four; (5) increase the number of jurors to allow for an alternate; (6) add both a delayed enactment date of July 1, 2016 and a three year sunset to the mandatory EJT provisions of the bill; and (7) make other technical and clarifying changes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the EJT Act, with a January 1, 2016 sunset.

2. Provides that all parties agreeing to participate in an EJT and, if represented, their counsel, must sign a proposed consent order granting an EJT, which must contain, among other things, the parties’ agreement to all of the following:

• That all parties waive all rights to appeal and move for directed verdict or make any post-trial motions, as defined, except as specified;

• That each side shall have up to three hours in which to present its case;

• That the jury shall be composed of eight or fewer jurors with no alternates;

• That each side shall be limited to three peremptory challenges, unless the court permits an additional challenge in specified cases; and

• That the trial and pretrial matters will proceed under the Act’s provisions limiting the ability to appeal, time to present the case, number of jurors, and number of peremptory challenges, and, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise in the proposed consent order, under all other provisions in this Act and implementing rules of court.

3. Provides that the verdict in an EJT case is binding, subject to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations concerning the amount of the award agreed upon by the parties. Provides that a vote of six of the eight jurors is required for a verdict, unless the parties stipulate otherwise.

4. Provides that, except where court approval is required under specified law, the agreement to participate in the EJT process is binding upon the parties, unless: (a) all parties stipulate to end the agreement to participate; or (b) the court, on its own motion or at the request of a party by noticed motion, finds that good cause exists for the action not to proceed under the rules of the Act.

5. Provides that by agreeing to participate in the EJT process, the parties agree to waive any motions for directed verdict, motions to set aside the verdict or any judgment rendered by the jury, or motions for a new trial on the basis of inadequate or excessive damages.

6. Requires court approval for the use of an EJT and any high/low agreements or other stipulations for an EJT involving either: (a) a self-represented litigant; or (b) a minor, an incompetent person, or a person for whom a conservator has been appointed.

7. Specifies that juries in EJT cases shall be composed of eight jurors, unless the parties have agreed to fewer and that no alternates shall be selected.

8. Requires the court to allow each side three peremptory challenges. If there are more than two parties in a case and more than two sides, as determined by the court under specified law, the parties may request one additional challenge each, which the court is to grant as the interests of justice may require.

9. Provides that the rules of evidence apply in EJTs, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, and that the right to issue subpoenas and notices to appear to secure the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents at trial shall be in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.

10. Provides that all statutes and rules governing costs and attorney’s fees shall apply in EJTs, unless the parties agree otherwise in the consent order.

11. Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of this chapter, as specified.

This bill:

1. Extends the time that each party has to present its case in a voluntary EJT to five hours, including time to complete voir dire.

2. Requires the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2016, to update rules and forms and establish uniform procedures implementing the procedures of the EJT Act, as specified.

3. Renames the Act as the Voluntary EJT Act and removes the Act’s January 1, 2016 sunset date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely.

4. Establishes the Mandatory EJT Act to require that an action or special proceeding treated as a limited civil case under existing law be conducted as a mandatory EJT, as specified.

5. Permits either party to opt out of the mandatory EJT procedures if:

• Punitive damages are sought;

• Damages in excess of insurance policy limits are sought;

• A party’s insurer is providing a legal defense subject to a reservation of rights;

• The case involves a claim reportable to a governmental entity;

• The case involves a claim of moral turpitude that may affect an individual’s professional licensing;

• The case involves claims of intentional conduct;

• The case has been reclassified as unlimited pursuant to specified law;

• The complaint contains a demand for attorney fees, unless those fees are sought pursuant to Civil Code Section 1717 (allowing for reasonable attorney’s fees in an action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides for the award of attorney’s fees and costs when incurred to enforce that contract); or

• The judge finds good cause exists for the action not to proceed under the mandatory EJT rules. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, a showing that a party needs more than five hours to present or defend the action and that the parties have been unable to stipulate to additional time.

6. Includes various provisions for mandatory EJTs that are identical to existing law for voluntary EJTs. These identical provisions generally relate to:

• The definition of the term “high/low” agreement;

• The cap on the time each party has to present its case, including voir dire;

• The ability of the jury to deliberate as long as needed and the number of jurors required for a verdict;

• The application of the rules of evidence;

• The application of the Code of Civil Procedure for purposes of subpoenas, notices to appear, and the production of documents at trial; and

• The application of all statutes and rules governing costs and attorney’s fees.

7. Includes various provisions for mandatory EJTs that differ from existing law for voluntary EJTs. Specifically, these provisions:

• Allow for an alternate juror for a total of eight jurors and one alternate;

• Allow for four peremptory challenges;

• Provides that a judgment in a limited civil case conducted as an EJT may be appealed , as specified;

• Provide that its procedures and the implementing rules of court shall apply to EJTs conducted in limited civil cases, unless the parties agree otherwise, as specified, and the court so orders. Provide, further, that any matters not expressly addressed by this bill, in the implementing rules of court, or in an agreement authorized by this bill and the implementing rules, are governed by applicable statutes and rules governing civil actions;

• Allow the parties to agree to modify the rules and procedures specified in this bill and the implementing rules of court, subject to the court’s approval;

• Provide that the verdict in a limited civil case following an EJT shall be appealable, as specified, and subject to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations by the parties concerning the amount of the award; and

• Require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2016, to establish uniform procedures implementing the Mandatory EJT Acts, as specified.

8. Includes a July 1, 2016 enactment date and a July 1, 2019 sunset date for the Mandatory EJT Act provisions.

Background

In 2010, following the proposal of a Judicial Council working group, the Legislature enacted AB 2284 (Evans, Chapter 764, Statutes of 2010) to establish the Expedited Jury Trials Act in California. Sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and Consumer Attorneys of California, AB 2284 generally set forth the procedures for the state’s expedited civil jury trial process and required the Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms, as specified, to establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of that process. Under the resulting streamlined process, an EJT, as compared to a regular jury trial, is shorter in length (at three hours total, separate from voir dire), smaller in jury size (with eight as opposed to 12 jurors), and has a faster jury selection process (allowing for only three peremptory challenges per side). Perhaps most importantly, there is no right to an appeal, thereby resulting in finality of the judgment earlier than in many regular jury trials. The Act is currently set to sunset on January 1, 2016.

This bill, sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and the Consumer Attorneys of California, now seeks to repeal the sunset date placed on the voluntary EJT Act in order to extend the Act indefinitely, while also extending the time for each side to present their case from three hours to five hours, including voir dire. Separately, this bill makes EJTs mandatory for civil cases of under $25,000 or less, except as specified, and sets for rules and procedures, accordingly.

Comments

As stated by the author:

The expedited jury trial (EJT) option was enacted in 2011 to help courts deal with overloaded dockets that were the result of major budget cuts and courtroom closures. EJTs are ideal for cases involving smaller dollar amounts that do not involve catastrophic injuries, cases that often affect lower-income workers. These cases are prone to being lost in the system and leaving vulnerable Californians without compensation. The EJT statute is set to sunset January 1, 2016. . . . AB 555 removes the sunset for the current expedited jury trial statutes, provides some procedural fixes [], and creates a new chapter requiring limited civil cases to be conducted as expedited jury trials.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/15)

California Defense Counsel (co-source)

Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source)

California Association of Joint Powers Authorities

California Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/25/15)

American Council of Life Insurers

Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Co-sponsor Consumer Attorneys of California writes that:

This bill removes the sunset for the current expedited jury trial statutes and provides some procedural fixes. For example, while both parties are allowed three hours to present their case, judges in different jurisdictions interpret this time requirement differently. Some judges allow EJTs to be held in multiple days, while others do not. Some judges do not include voir dire in this time frame, while others require jury selection and presentation to be complete on the same day. AB 555 allows each party 5 hours to present their case and complete voir dire. This provides parties with ample time to present their case and allows them [to] use their time as they see fit, divided amongst jury selection and case presentation.

Second, in order to provide cases with smaller dollar amounts their day in court, AB 555 adds a new statute creating a Limited Jurisdiction Expedited Jury Trial Act for all limited jurisdiction cases under $25,000. Under this Act the EJT system will be mandatory for limited jurisdiction cases with a series of opt out exceptions. AB 555 also reinstates the right to appeal for limited jurisdiction cases to their respective Superior Court Appellate Division.

Also in support, co-sponsor California Defense Counsel adds:

Despite the pressing need for efficiencies in our civil trial system, and despite the consensus support for the innovations in EJTs, utilization of the model has not been as robust as hoped. There are varying theories as to the cause of this underutilization. It is possible that the timeframes allowed for presenting cases is too short, that voir dire is too limited, and that the lack of appeal rights discourages parties, their counsel and insurers from agreeing to participate.

We believe that it is time to act more aggressively to achieve the efficiencies in expedited jury trials. To that end, AB 555 proposes to make the EJT model mandatory for the first time, but only for a very limited range of cases and with carefully crafted exemptions for certain types of cases where EJT may be inappropriate. [ . . . ]

Working with our colleagues in the plaintiff’s bar, we believe that AB 555 has been carefully constructed to move towards the efficiency promises of expedited jury trials, but with the protections that plaintiffs, defendants and insurers deserve. Given the compelling need [to] utilize extremely limited civil trial resources as efficiently as possible, we believe that a slightly bolder approach is now appropriate.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies and the American Council of Life Insurers write in opposition:

Most insurance companies, like most individuals, would prefer to avoid Jury trials for a number of reasons. If insurers must go to trial, it is usually not be choice so there is usually not much benefit to having expedited rules versus a more deliberative process. As the cost of mandatory expedited trials under $25,000 is high, it can often cost more than what it at issue. Most companies would prefer a reasonable arbitration process, per what is allowed under California law and the contract.

If a case goes before a jury, we do not believe there should be a limitation as to what procedures are available and what inquiries can be made—including time on voir dire, number of jurors and any appeal rights. The award value can be quickly agreed to by both parties in court.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Harper

Prepared by: Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/25/15 15:19:29

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 555

Author: Alejo (D)

Amended: 7/2/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 7/14/15

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

NOES: Anderson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Civil actions

SOURCE: California Defense Counsel

Consumer Attorneys of California

DIGEST: This bill modifies the existing Expedited Jury Trials Act (hereinafter, “EJT Act” or “Act”) to extend the number of hours for each side to present their case and to repeal the Act’s January 1, 2016 sunset date. Separately, this bill makes expedited jury trials (EJTs) mandatory for limited civil cases, subject to the right of parties to opt out in certain circumstances, as specified. This bill includes various provisions governing mandatory EJTs, such as provision allowing for a right of appeal, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Allows cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to $25,000 or less to be tried as a limited civil case with informal trial requirements.

2. Allows, generally, each party to a civil action a limit of six peremptory challenges of the jury panel.

3. Establishes the EJT Act and defines various terms.

4. Provides that all parties agreeing to participate in an EJT and, if represented, their counsel, must sign a proposed consent order granting an EJT, which must contain, among other things, the parties’ agreement to all of the following:

• That all parties waive all rights to appeal and move for directed verdict or make any post-trial motions, as defined, except as specified;

• That each side shall have up to three hours in which to present its case;

• That the jury shall be composed of eight or fewer jurors with no alternates;

• That each side shall be limited to three peremptory challenges, unless the court permits an additional challenge in specified cases; and

• That the trial and pretrial matters will proceed under the Act’s provisions limiting the ability to appeal, time to present the case, number of jurors, and number of peremptory challenges, and, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise in the proposed consent order, under all other provisions in this Act and implementing rules of court.

5. Provides that the verdict in an EJT case is binding, subject to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations concerning the amount of the award agreed upon by the parties. Provides that a vote of six of the eight jurors is required for a verdict, unless the parties stipulate otherwise.

6. Provides that, except where court approval is required under specified law, the agreement to participate in the EJT process is binding upon the parties, unless: (a) all parties stipulate to end the agreement to participate; or (b) the court, on its own motion or at the request of a party by noticed motion, finds that good cause exists for the action not to proceed under the rules of the Act.

7. Provides that by agreeing to participate in the EJT process, the parties agree to waive any motions for directed verdict, motions to set aside the verdict or any judgment rendered by the jury, or motions for a new trial on the basis of inadequate or excessive damages.

8. Provides that by agreeing to participate in the EJT process, the parties agree to waive the right to bring post-trial motions or to appeal from the determination of the matter, except as specified.

9. Requires court approval for the use of an EJT and any high/low agreements or other stipulations for an EJT involving either: (a) a self-represented litigant; or (b) a minor, an incompetent person, or a person for whom a conservator has been appointed.

10. Requires the court to issue the consent order as proposed by the parties, unless it finds good cause why the action should not proceed though the EJT process, in which case the court must deny the proposed consent order in its entirety.

11. Specifies that juries in EJT cases shall be composed of eight jurors, unless the parties have agreed to fewer and that no alternates shall be selected.

12. Requires the court to allow each side three peremptory challenges. If there are more than two parties in a case and more than two sides, as determined by the court under specified law, the parties may request one additional challenge each, which the court is to grant as the interests of justice may require.

13. Provides that nothing in this chapter is intended to preclude a jury from deliberating as long as needed.

14. Provides that the rules of evidence apply in EJTs, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, and that the right to issue subpoenas and notices to appear to secure the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents at trial shall be in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. Prohibits any stipulation by the parties to use relaxed rules of evidence from being construed to eliminate, or in any way affect, the right of a witness or party to invoke any applicable privilege or other law protecting confidentiality.

15. Provides that all statutes and rules governing costs and attorney’s fees shall apply in EJTs, unless the parties agree otherwise in the consent order.

16. Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of this chapter, as specified.

17. Provides that the Act will sunset on January 1, 2016.

This bill:

1. Extends the time that each party has to present its case in a voluntary EJT to five hours, including time to complete voir dire.

2. Requires the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2016, to update rules and forms and establish uniform procedures implementing the procedures of the EJT Act, as specified.

3. Removes the Act’s January 1, 2016 sunset date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely.

4. Provides, separately, that an action or special proceeding treated as a limited civil case under existing law, as specified, must be conducted as an EJT pursuant to specified mandatory EJT provisions.

5. Permits either party to opt out of the mandatory EJT procedures if:

• Punitive damages are sought;

• Damages in excess of insurance policy limits are sought;

• A party’s insurer is providing a legal defense subject to a reservation of rights;

• The case involves a claim reportable to a governmental entity;

• The case involves a claim of moral turpitude that may affect an individual’s professional licensing;

• The case involves claims of intentional conduct; or

• The judge finds good cause exists for the action not to proceed under the mandatory EJT rules.

6. Includes various provisions for mandatory EJTs that are identical to existing law for voluntary EJTs. These identical provisions generally relate to:

• Definitions of the terms “high/low” agreement and “post-trial motions;”

• The cap on the time each party has to complete voir dire and present its case;

• The number of jurors and peremptory challenges;

• The ability of the jury to deliberate as long as needed and the number of jurors required for a verdict;

• The application of the rules of evidence;

• The application of the Code of Civil Procedure for purposes of subpoenas, notices to appear, and the production of documents at trial; and

• The application of all statutes and rules governing costs and attorney’s fees.

7. Includes various provisions for mandatory EJTs that differ from existing law for voluntary EJTs. Specifically, this bill:

• Provides that a judgment in a limited civil case conducted as an EJT may be appealed , as specified;

• Provides that its procedures and the implementing rules of court shall apply to EJTs conducted in limited civil cases, unless the parties agree otherwise, as specified, and the court so orders. Provides, further, that any matters not expressly addressed by this bill, in the implementing rules of court, or in an agreement authorized by this bill and the implementing rules, are governed by applicable statutes and rules governing civil actions;

• Allows the parties to agree to modify the rules and procedures specified in this bill and the implementing rules of court, subject to the court’s approval;

• Provides that the verdict in a limited civil case following an EJT shall be appealable, as specified, and subject to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations by the parties concerning the amount of the award; and

• Requires the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2016, to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures implementing this bill’s mandatory EJT provisions, as specified.

Background

In 2010, following the proposal of a Judicial Council working group, the Legislature enacted AB 2284 (Evans, Chapter 764, Statutes of 2010) to establish the Expedited Jury Trials Act in California. Sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and Consumer Attorneys of California, AB 2284 generally set forth the procedures for the state’s expedited civil jury trial process and required the Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms, as specified, to establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of that process. Under the resulting streamlined process, an EJT, as compared to a regular jury trial, is shorter in length (at three hours total, separate from voir dire), smaller in jury size (with eight as opposed to 12 jurors), and has a faster jury selection process (allowing for only three peremptory challenges per side). Perhaps most importantly, there is no right to an appeal, thereby resulting in finality of the judgment earlier than in many regular jury trials. The Act is currently set to sunset on January 1, 2016.

This bill, sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and the Consumer Attorneys of California, now seeks to repeal the sunset date placed on the voluntary EJT Act in order to extend the Act indefinitely, while also extending the time for each side to present their case from three hours to five hours, including voir dire. Separately, this bill makes EJTs mandatory for civil cases of under $25,000 or less, except as specified, and sets for rules and procedures, accordingly.

Comments

As stated by the author:

The expedited jury trial (EJT) option was enacted in 2011 to help courts deal with overloaded dockets that were the result of major budget cuts and courtroom closures. EJTs are ideal for cases involving smaller dollar amounts that do not involve catastrophic injuries, cases that often affect lower-income workers. These cases are prone to being lost in the system and leaving vulnerable Californians without compensation. The EJT statute is set to sunset January 1, 2016.

Despite the need to resolve these cases and support for the innovations in EJTs, parties have not been utilizing the EJT system. Although the cause for the lack of use is unknown, it is possible that the timeframes allowed for presenting cases is too short, that voir dire is too limited, and that the lack of appeal rights discourages parties, their counsel and insurers from agreeing to participate.

AB 555 removes the sunset for the current expedited jury trial statutes, provides some procedural fixes to address the problems above, and creates a new chapter requiring limited civil cases to be conducted as expedited jury trials.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/17/15)

California Defense Counsel (co-source)

Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source)

California Association of Joint Powers Authorities

California Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/17/15)

American Insurance Association

American Council of Life Insurers

Association of California Insurance Companies

Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies

Civil Justice Association of California

Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies

Personal Insurance Federation of California

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Co-sponsor Consumer Attorneys of California writes that:

This bill removes the sunset for the current expedited jury trial statutes and provides some procedural fixes. For example, while both parties are allowed three hours to present their case, judges in different jurisdictions interpret this time requirement differently. Some judges allow EJTs to be held in multiple days, while others do not. Some judges do not include voir dire in this time frame, while others require jury selection and presentation to be complete on the same day. AB 555 allows each party 5 hours to present their case and complete voir dire. This provides parties with ample time to present their case and allows them [to] use their time as they see fit, divided amongst jury selection and case presentation.

Second, in order to provide cases with smaller dollar amounts their day in court, AB 555 adds a new statute creating a Limited Jurisdiction Expedited Jury Trial Act for all limited jurisdiction cases under $25,000. Under this Act the EJT system will be mandatory for limited jurisdiction cases with a series of opt out exceptions. AB 555 also reinstates the right to appeal for limited jurisdiction cases to their respective Superior Court Appellate Division.

AB 555 improves the EJT system, which provides resolution of cases while saving time, expense and court resources.

Also in support, co-sponsor California Defense Counsel adds:

Despite the pressing need for efficiencies in our civil trial system, and despite the consensus support for the innovations in EJTs, utilization of the model has not been as robust as hoped. There are varying theories as to the cause of this underutilization. It is possible that the timeframes allowed for presenting cases is too short, that voir dire is too limited, and that the lack of appeal rights discourages parties, their counsel and insurers from agreeing to participate.

We believe that it is time to act more aggressively to achieve the efficiencies in expedited jury trials. To that end, AB 555 proposes to make the EJT model mandatory for the first time, but only for a very limited range of cases and with carefully crafted exemptions for certain types of cases where EJT may be inappropriate. [ . . . ]

To address perceived disincentives in the current law, the bill replaces the current per-side time limit to present cases of three hours, exclusive of very limited time for voir dire of jurors, with a five-hour per side limit, inclusive of voir dire. Because EJT would now be mandatory in limited cases and circumstances, AB 555 also provides for a right to appeal to the appellate division of superior courts.

Working with our colleagues in the plaintiff’s bar, we believe that AB 555 has been carefully constructed to move towards the efficiency promises of expedited jury trials, but with the protections that plaintiffs, defendants and insurers deserve. Given the compelling need [to] utilize extremely limited civil trial resources as efficiently as possible, we believe that a slightly bolder approach is now appropriate.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Personal Insurance Federation of California, Association of California Insurance Companies, Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the American Insurance Association take an oppose unless amended position on this bill, writing that they are most concerned that “the bill now mandates expedited jury trails for limited civil actions ($25,000 or less), even though certain cases may be too complex for mandatory expedited jury trials. The current law was supported by a variety of stakeholders due to its voluntary nature.” The coalition writes that if this bill is to continue to impose mandatory EJTs on limited civil actions, they will “strong concerns regarding the lack of flexibility in the program” and request that, at minimum, the following amendments be made to this bill: (1) add a sunset provision to allow for determination of whether such a program is suitable; (2) include within the opt-out provision allowing for good cause language that would “include as ‘good cause’ a party’s ability to show that the party needs more than five hours to effectively prosecute or defend the action, unless the parties are able to stipulate to more time;” and (3) increase peremptory challenges from three to four.” The coalition also rights that they have additional (unspecified) revisions to discuss with the author.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Harper

Prepared by: Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/18/15 17:18:16

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2015-2016 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 555 (Author:Alejo)

Version: July 2, 2015

Hearing Date: July 14, 2015

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: RD

SUBJECT

Civil actions

DESCRIPTION

This bill would modify the existing Expedited Jury Trials Act (Act) to extend the number of hours for each side to present their case from three hours to five hours, including voir dire. This bill would repeal the Act’s January 1, 2016 sunset date, thus, extending these provisions indefinitely.

Separately, this bill would make expedited jury trials (EJTs) mandatory for limited civil cases, as specified, subject to the right of parties to opt out of the mandatory EJT if:

• punitive damages are sought;

• damages in excess of insurance policy limits are sought;

• a party’s insurer is providing a legal defense subject to a reservation of rights;

• the case involves a claim reportable to a governmental entity;

• the case involves a claim of moral turpitude that may affect an individual’s professional licensing;

• the case involves claims of intentional conduct; or

• the judge finds good cause exists for the action not to proceed as an EJT.

This bill would include various provisions for mandatory EJTs that differ from voluntary EJTs, including a provision allowing the parties to appeal an ESJ verdict, as specified.

BACKGROUND

In the late 1990s, the plaintiff and defense bars in Charleston County, South Carolina, developed a model, labeled the “summary jury trial program,” for expediting jury trials. This summary jury trial program is voluntary, inexpensive, accessible, and binding. This program uses a reduced jury size, has flexibility including relaxed rules of evidence, and often includes high/low agreements on the scope of damages. The Charleston County model has gained acclaim for enhancing access to courts, reducing costs for litigants, and increasing court efficiency. (See Steven Croley, Summary Jury Trials in Charleston County, South Carolina, 41 Loy. L. Rev. 1585.)

Using the Charleston County program for guidance, the Judicial Council’s Small Civil Cases Working Group developed a streamlined method for use in California civil courts. The Judicial Council prepared a proposal for implementation of an expedited jury trial. (See Judicial Council Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee, Civil Trials: Expedited Jury Trials, Invitation to Comment (Mar. 30, 2010) <http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/spr10-16.pdf f> [as of Jul. 5, 2015].)

AB 2284 (Evans, Ch. 764, Stats. 2010) was subsequently proposed to enact the Expedited Jury Trials Act (Act) in California. Sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and Consumer Attorneys of California, AB 2284 generally established the procedures for the state’s expedited civil jury trial process and required the Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms, on or before January 1, 2011, to establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of the expedited civil jury trial process. Under the current streamlined process, an expedited jury trial (EJT), as compared to a regular jury trial, is shorter in length (at three hours total, separate from voir dire), smaller in jury size (with eight as opposed to 12 jurors), and has a faster jury selection process (allowing for only three peremptory challenges per side). Perhaps most importantly, there is no right to an appeal, thereby resulting in finality of the judgment earlier than in many regular jury trials. The Act is currently set to sunset on January 1, 2016.

Notably, earlier this year, the Judicial Council submitted a report to the Legislature on the number of jury trials conducted pursuant to the Act since it took effect on January 1, 2011. According to that report, of the 58 superior courts, 39 (or 67 percent) reported data on the use of EJTs. Of those, 25 courts reported that EJTs had not been used in any cases during the reporting period, while the remaining 14 courts reported using EJTs in one or more cases during the reporting period. The 14 courts included the Superior Courts of Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano, Tulare, and Ventura counties. Collectively these 14 courts reported a total of 156 EJTs over the entire reporting period. This represents 4.3 percent of the total civil jury trials that took place in these 14 courts during the reporting period, and 4.0 percent of all the jury trials in the 39 reporting counties. (Judicial Council, Trial Courts: Report on Expedited Jury Trials (Jan. 30, 2015) <http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20150219-info4.pdf> [as of Jul. 5, 2015] p. 3.)

Interestingly, according to the Council’s report, in terms of disposition of the EJTs in comparison to regular jury trials, the Council found the following:

Based on a 2005 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, plaintiffs won in 53 [percent] of jury trials overall. [Footnote omitted.] Although our data reflects a similar pattern, it is difficult to say with certainty whether EJT dispositions match dispositions in overall jury trials due to the small reporting numbers and because many courts had two or fewer EJTs in the reporting period.

However, if we look only at those courts with greater than 10 EJTs, the percentage breakdown reflects 55 [percent] judgment for plaintiff and 45 [percent] judgment for defendant. Additionally, if we look at the court with the highest reported number of EJTs (n=62), the breakdown shifts slightly but still reflects an almost 50/50 breakdown at 52 [percent] judgment for defendant and 48 [percent] judgment for plaintiff.

This bill, sponsored by the California Defense Counsel and the Consumer Attorneys of California, would now modify the Act to make expedited jury trials mandatory for civil cases of under $25,000 or less, except as specified, and would repeal the sunset date to extend the Act indefinitely. These mandatory EJT judgments would be appealable, as specified.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law allows cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to $25,000 or less to be tried as a limited civil case with informal trial requirements. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 86.)

Existing law requires a jury to consist of 12 people, unless a lesser number is agreed upon by the parties in open court. (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 16; Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 220.) Existing law further states that in civil causes other than causes within the appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeal the Legislature may provide that the jury shall consist of eight persons or a lesser number agreed on by the parties in open court. (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 16.)

Existing law generally allows each party to a civil action a limit of six peremptory challenges of the jury panel. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 231(c).)

Existing law establishes the Expedited Jury Trials Act and defines “expedited jury trial” (EJT) to mean a consensual, binding jury trial before a reduced jury panel and a judicial officer. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.01(a).) Existing law defines “high/low agreement” to mean a written agreement entered into by the parties that specifies a minimum amount of damages that a plaintiff is guaranteed to receive from the defendant, and a maximum amount of damages that the defendant will be liable for, regardless of the ultimate verdict returned by the jury. Existing law provides that neither the existence of, nor the amounts contained in, any high/low agreements may be disclosed to the jury. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.01(b).) Existing law provides that the term “post-trial motions” does not include motions relating to costs and attorney’s fees, motions to correct a judgment for a clerical error, and motions to enforce a judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.01(c).)

Existing law provides that all parties agreeing to participate in an EJT and, if represented, their counsel, must sign a proposed consent order granting an expedited jury trial. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.03(a).) Existing law provides that the proposed consent order submitted to the court must contain, among other things, the parties’ agreement to all of the following;

• that all parties waive all rights to appeal and move for directed verdict or make any post-trial motions, as defined, except as specified;

• that each side shall have up to three hours in which to present its case;

• that the jury shall be composed of eight or fewer jurors with no alternates;

• that each side shall be limited to three peremptory challenges, unless the court permits an additional challenge in cases with more than two sides as specified; and

• that the trial and pretrial matters will be proceeding under the above limits on ability to appeal, time to present the case, jurors, and peremptory challenges, and unless the parties expressly agree otherwise in the proposed consent order, under all the provision in this Act and in the implementing rules of court. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.03(e).)

Existing law provides that the verdict in an expedited jury trial case is binding, subject to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations concerning the amount of the award agreed upon by the parties. Existing law provides that a vote of six of the eight jurors is required for a verdict, unless the parties stipulate otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.07.)

Existing law provides that, except where court approval is required under specified law, the agreement to participate in the EJT process is binding upon the parties, unless either of the following occurs: (1) all parties stipulate to end the agreement to participate; or (2) the court, on its own motion or at the request of a party by noticed motion, finds that good cause exists for the action not to proceed under the rules of the Act. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.03(b).)

Existing law provides that by agreeing to participate in the expedited jury trial process, the parties agree to waive any motions for directed verdict, motions to set aside the verdict or any judgment rendered by the jury, or motions for a new trial on the basis of inadequate or excessive damages. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.08(a).)

Existing law further provides that by agreeing to participate in the expedited jury trial process, the parties agree to waive the right to bring post-trial motions or to appeal from the determination of the matter, except as provided in this section. The only grounds on which a party may move for a new trial or appeal are: (1) judicial misconduct that materially affected the substantial rights of a party; (2) misconduct of the jury; or (3) corruption, fraud, or other undue means employed in the proceedings of the court, jury, or adverse party that prevented a party from having a fair trial. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.09(a).)

Existing law requires court approval for the use of an EJT and any high/low agreements or other stipulations for an EJT involving either: (1) a self-represented litigant; or (2) a minor, an incompetent person, or a person for whom a conservator has been appointed. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.03(d).)

Existing law requires that the court issue the consent order as proposed by the parties, unless the court finds good cause why the action should not proceed though the EJT process, in which case the court must deny the proposed consent order in its entirety. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.03(e).)

Existing law specifies that juries in expedited jury trial cases shall be composed of eight jurors, unless the parties have agreed to fewer and that no alternates shall be selected. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.04(a).)

Existing law requires the court to allow each side three peremptory challenges. If there are more than two parties in a case and more than two sides, as determined by the court under specified law, the parties may request one additional peremptory challenge each, which is to be granted by the court as the interests of justice may require. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.04(b).)

Existing law provides that nothing in this chapter is intended to preclude a jury from deliberating as long as needed. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.05.)

Existing law provides that the rules of evidence apply in expedited jury trials, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, and that the right to issue subpoenas and notices to appear to secure the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents at trial shall be in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. Existing law further provides that any stipulation by the parties to use relaxed rules of evidence may not be construed to eliminate, or in any way affect, the right of a witness or party to invoke any applicable privilege or other law protecting confidentiality. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.06.)

Existing law provides that all statutes and rules governing costs and attorney’s fees shall apply in expedited jury trials, unless the parties agree otherwise in the consent order. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.10.)

Existing law requires the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2011, to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions of this chapter, including, but not limited to, rules for all of the following:

• additional content of proposed consent orders;

• pretrial exchanges and submissions;

• pretrial conferences;

• time limits for jury selection;

• time limits for trial, including presentation of evidence and arguments;

• presentation of evidence and testimony; and

• any other procedures necessary to implement the provisions of the Act. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.11.)

Existing law provides that the Act will sunset on January 1, 2016.

This bill would extend the time each party has to present its case to five hours, including time to complete voir dire.

This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2016, to update rules and forms and establish uniform procedures implementing the procedures of this Act, including, but not limited to, rules for all of the following:

• additional content of proposed consent orders;

• pretrial exchanges and submissions;

• pretrial conferences;

• presentation of evidence and testimony; and

• any other procedures necessary to implement the provisions of the Act.

This bill would remove the Act’s January 1, 2016 sunset date, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely.

This bill would provide that an action or special proceeding treated as a limited civil case under existing law, including an action or special proceeding initially filed as a limited civil case or remanded as one thereafter, must be conducted as an EJT pursuant to specified mandatory EJT provisions.

This bill would permit either party to opt out of the mandatory EJT procedures if any of the following criteria is met:

• punitive damages are sought;

• damages in excess of insurance policy limits are sought;

• a party’s insurer is providing a legal defense subject to a reservation of rights;

• the case involves a claim reportable to a governmental entity;

• the case involves a claim of moral turpitude that may affect an individual’s professional licensing;

• the case involves claims of intentional conduct; or

• the judge finds good cause exists for the action not to proceed under the mandatory EJT rules.

This bill would include various provisions for mandatory EJTs that are identical to existing law for voluntary EJTs. These identical provisions generally relate to:

• definitions of the terms “high/low” agreement and “post-trial motions;”

• the cap on the time each party has to complete voir dire and present its case;

• the number of jurors;

• the number of peremptory challenges;

• the ability of the jury to deliberate as long as needed;

• the number of jurors required for a verdict;

• the application of the rules of evidence;

• the application of the Code of Civil Procedure for purposes of subpoenas, notices to appear, and the production of documents at trial; and

• the application of all statutes and rules governing costs and attorney’s fees.

The bill would include various provisions for mandatory EJTs that differ from existing law for voluntary EJTs. Specifically, the bill would:

• define “expedited jury trial” to mean a jury trial before a reduced jury panel and a judicial officer;

• provide that a judgment in a limited civil case conducted as an EJT may be appealed to the appellate division of the superior court in which the case was tried;

• provide that its procedures and the implementing rules of court shall apply to expedited jury trials conducted in limited civil cases, unless the parties agree otherwise, as specified, and the court so orders. Further, any matters not expressly addressed by this bill, in the implementing rules of court, or in an agreement authorized by this bill and the implementing rules, would be governed by applicable statutes and rules governing civil actions;

• provide that the parties may agree to modify the rules and procedures specified in this bill and the implementing rules of court, subject to the court’s approval;

• provide that the verdict in a limited civil case following an EJT shall be appealable, as specified under the bill, and subject to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations by the parties concerning the amount of the award; and

• require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2016, to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures implementing the bill’s mandatory EJT provisions, including, but not limited to, rules for the following:

• pretrial exchanges and submissions;

• pretrial conferences;

• opt-out procedures pursuant to the provision in the bill, above, authorizing parties to opt-out in certain circumstances;

• presentation of evidence and testimony; and

• any other procedures necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

The expedited jury trial (EJT) option was enacted in 2011 to help courts deal with overloaded dockets that were the result of major budget cuts and courtroom closures. EJTs are ideal for cases involving smaller dollar amounts that do not involve catastrophic injuries, cases that often affect lower-income workers. These cases are prone to being lost in the system and leaving vulnerable Californians without compensation. The EJT statute is set to sunset January 1, 2016.

Despite the need to resolve these cases and support for the innovations in EJTs, parties have not been utilizing the EJT system. Although the cause for the lack of use is unknown, it is possible that the timeframes allowed for presenting cases is too short, that voir dire is too limited, and that the lack of appeal rights discourages parties, their counsel and insurers from agreeing to participate.

AB 555 removes the sunset for the current expedited jury trial statutes, provides some procedural fixes to address the problems above, and creates a new chapter requiring limited civil cases to be conducted as expedited jury trials.

Co-sponsor Consumer Attorneys of California adds in support of the bill that:

This bill removes the sunset for the current expedited jury trial statutes and provides some procedural fixes. For example, while both parties are allowed three hours to present their case, judges in different jurisdictions interpret this time requirement differently. Some judges allow EJTs to be held in multiple days, while others do not. Some judges do not include voir dire in this time frame, while others require jury selection and presentation to be complete on the same day. AB 555 allows each party 5 hours to present their case and complete voir dire. This provides parties with ample time to present their case and allows them [to] use their time as they see fit, divided amongst jury selection and case presentation.

Second, in order to provide cases with smaller dollar amounts their day in court, AB 555 adds a new statute creating a Limited Jurisdiction Expedited Jury Trial Act for all limited jurisdiction cases under $25,000. Under this Act the EJT system will be mandatory for limited jurisdiction cases with a series of opt out exceptions. AB 555 also reinstates the right to appeal for limited jurisdiction cases to their respective Superior Court Appellate Division.

AB 555 improves the EJT system, which provides resolution of cases while saving time, expense and court resources.

2. Bill would lead to more timely resolutions of limited civil cases in California and create court efficiencies

This bill, with the exception of limited civil cases, would continue to leave it up to the parties to decide whether to proceed with a regular jury trial or voluntarily enter into agreements to litigate their cases pursuant to the existing EJT procedures. This bill would amend those provisions to increase the time to present the case from three hours to five hours (which would now also include the time not just for presentation of the case, but also for voir dire). In limited civil cases, which is generally defined by existing law to mean cases wherein the amount in dispute is less than $25,000, this bill would make an EJT mandatory, unless a particular exception applies and a party elects to opt out pursuant to that exception, or where the judge finds good cause not to proceed under the mandatory EJT provisions in that particular action. These exceptions include, for example, where punitive damages are sought, damages in excess of insurance coverage are sought, the claim involves a claim of moral turpitude that may affect an individual’s professional licensing, or claims of intentional conduct.

By and large, this bill would maintain the same rules for mandatory EJTs as is provided for voluntary EJTs. These rules include the time to present a case, the number of jurors, the number of peremptory challenges, definitions of high/low agreements and post-trial motions; the number of jurors required for a verdict, the application of rules of evidence, the application of statutes and rules governing costs and attorney’s fees, and more.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two separate EJT processes would be with regard to the right of appeal. Under the existing voluntary EJT process, by agreeing to participate in the EJT process, the parties also agree to waive the right to bring post-trial motions or to appeal from the determination of the matter, except in limited circumstances, such as where there has been judicial misconduct that materially affected the substantial rights of a party, or misconduct of the jury. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 630.09.) In contrast, however, under the mandatory EJT process for a limited civil case where no party has opted out pursuant to the bill, the parties would maintain the right to appeal the judgment to the appellate division of the superior court where the case was tried. By making this process mandatory for most limited civil cases in this state, this bill would arguably create much-needed court efficiencies and could dramatically decrease the time between when a case as brought and a judgment is obtained, especially in light of the budgetary constraints felt by the courts and the resulting delays affecting regular civil trials over the last several years. Notably, this bill is the result of a compromise between the two co-sponsors, representing the often divergent interests of the plaintiffs and defense bars, who agree that the voluntary EJT process is vastly underused and could create court efficiencies if mandated, for now, on a limited scale, with adequate safeguards for the parties.

The California Defense Counsel, co-sponsor, states:

Despite the pressing need for efficiencies in our civil trial system, and despite the consensus support for the innovations in EJTs, utilization of the model has not been as robust as hoped. There are varying theories as to the cause of this underutilization. It is possible that the timeframes allowed for presenting cases is too short, that voir dire is too limited, and that the lack of appeal rights discourages parties, their counsel and insurers from agreeing to participate.

We believe that it is time to act more aggressively to achieve the efficiencies in expedited jury trials. To that end, AB 555 proposes to make the EJT model mandatory for the first time, but only for a very limited range of cases and with carefully crafted exemptions for certain types of cases where EJT may be inappropriate. [ . . . ]

To address perceived disincentives in the current law, the bill replaces the current per-side time limit to present cases of three hours, exclusive of very limited time for voir dire of jurors, with a five-hour per side limit, inclusive of voir dire. Because EJT would now be mandatory in limited cases and circumstances, AB 555 also provides for a right to appeal to the appellate division of superior courts.

Working with our colleagues in the plaintiff’s bar, we believe that AB 555 has been carefully constructed to move towards the efficiency promises of expedited jury trials, but with the protections that plaintiffs, defendants and insurers deserve. Given the compelling need [to] utilize extremely limited civil trial resources as efficiently as possible, we believe that a slightly bolder approach is now appropriate.

3. Oppose unless amended

The Personal Insurance Federation of California, Association of California Insurance Companies, Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the American Insurance Association take an oppose unless amended position on this bill, writing that they are most concerned that “the bill now mandates expedited jury trails for limited civil actions ($25,000 or less), even though certain cases may be too complex for mandatory expedited jury trials. The current law was supported by a variety of stakeholders due to its voluntary nature.” The coalition writes that if the bill is to continue to impose mandatory ESJs on limited civil actions, they will “strong concerns regarding the lack of flexibility in the program” and request that, at minimum, the following amendments be made to the bill: (1) add a sunset provision to allow for determination of whether such a program is suitable; (2) include within the opt-out provision allowing for good cause language that would “include as ‘good cause’ a party’s ability to show that the party needs more than five hours to effectively prosecute or defend the action, unless the parties are able to stipulate to more time;” and (3) increase peremptory challenges from three to four.” The coalition also rights that they have additional (unspecified) revisions to discuss with the author.

In response, the author writes “it is has always been the intent of the bill to make courtroom procedures more efficient – to save time and money for both litigants and the courts, while preserving due process rights. “ While the author and the sponsors believe that the most recent amendments accomplish this intent, they “recognize the concerns raised by the opposition and commit to working with all stakeholders as the bill moves forward.”

Support: California Association of Joint Powers Authorities; California Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates (CAL-ABOTA)

Opposition: American Insurance Association; American Council of Life Insurers; Association of California Insurance Companies; Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies; Civil Justice Association of California; Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies; Personal Insurance Federation of California; National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

HISTORY

Source: California Defense Counsel; Consumer Attorneys of California

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation: AB 2284 (Evans, Ch. 764, Stats. 2010) See Background.

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 79, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************

Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 555

Author:(Alejo) – As Introduced Ver:February 23, 2015

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: CIVIL ACTIONS: EXPEDITED JURY TRIALS

KEY ISSUE: IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE CONTINUATION OF EXPEDITED JURY TRIALS IN CIVIL COURTS, SHOULD THE SUNSET PROVISION OF THE ACT BE REPEALED?

SYNOPSIS

This non-controversial bill seeks to repeal the sunset date of the Expedited Jury Trials Act, to allow for the continuation of its provisions indefinitely. An Expedited Jury Trial (EJT) is a court trial where the parties sign a consent order and stipulate that EJT procedures apply. EJT procedures include smaller juries (eight or less jurors), fewer peremptory challenges for each side (a limit of three, except upon court approval of one additional challenge) and a limited time no more than three hours) for each side to present its case. All parties waive their right to appeal, move for a directed verdict, or make any post-trial motions. Thus, the verdict in an EJT is binding. To date, the EJT program has not been used as much as originally anticipated. Since its inception in January 2010, only 156 jury trials have been conducted under the EJT program, representing 4.3% of the total number of civil jury trials that took place during that period. An informal working group which supports removal of the sunset provision has come together to discuss improvements to this trial option so that the EJT program will continue and the manner in which EJTs are conducted can be improved. There is no reported opposition to this bill.

SUMMARY: Extends the provisions of the Expedited Jury Trials Act indefinitely. Specifically, this bill repeals the January 1, 2016 sunset date of the Expedited Jury Trials Act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, until January 1, 2016, the Expedited Jury Trial Act. (AB 2284 (Evans) Chap.674, Stats. 2010, Section 2; Code of Civil Procedure Sections 630.01 et seq. All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise noted.)

2. Requires that any agreement to participate in an expedited jury trial in a civil matter may be entered into only after a dispute has arisen and an action has been filed. (Section 630.03.)

3. Requires all parties to agree to participate in an expedited jury trial and, if represented, their counsel must sign a proposed consent order granting an expedited jury trial. (Section 630.03.)

4. Provides that an agreement to participate in an expedited jury trial is binding on all parties unless one of the following occurs: a) all parties stipulate to end the agreement to participate in the expedited jury trial; or b) the court, on its own motion or at the request of a party by noticed motion, finds that good cause exists for the action not to proceed as an expedited jury trial. (Section 630.03.)

5. Provides that, except as specifically authorized in the Act, the implementing rules, or in a consent order authorized therein, the applicable statutes and rules governing civil actions apply. (Section 630.03.)

6. Requires a court to approve the use of an expedited jury trial and any "high/low" agreements or other stipulations in cases involving either a self-represented litigant; or a minor, an incompetent person, or a person for whom a conservator has been appointed. (Section 630.03.)

7. Requires that parties agreeing to an expedited jury trial submit a carefully specified proposed consent order to the court, and the court to issue the consent order as proposed by the parties, unless the court finds good cause why the action should not proceed through the expedited jury trial process, in which case the court shall deny the proposed consent order in its entirety. (Section 630.03.)

8. Allows the parties to exercise only 3 peremptory challenges and to request one additional peremptory challenge each, which is to be granted by the court as the interests of justice may require, and prescribes that a jury may deliberate as long as needed. (Section 630.04.)

9. Provides that the rules of evidence apply in expedited jury trials, unless the parties stipulate otherwise. (Section 630.06.)

10. Provides for the right to issue subpoenas and notices to appear to secure the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents at trial, per existing law. (Section 630.06.)

11. Provides that the verdict, in an expedited jury trial case is binding, subject to any written high/low agreement or other stipulations concerning the amount of the award agreed upon by the parties. (Section 630.07.)

12. Greatly limits the ability of the parties to obtain post-verdict relief such as directed verdicts, motions to set aside the verdict, or motions for a new trial. (Section 630.08.)

13. Requires the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2011, to adopt rules and forms to establish uniform procedures implementing the provisions for expedited jury trials, including, but not limited to, rules for all of the following:

    1. Additional content of proposed consent orders;

    2. Pretrial exchanges and submissions;

    3. Pretrial conferences;

    4. Time limits for jury selection;

    5. Time limits for trial, including presentation of evidence and argument;

    6. Presentation of evidence and testimony; and

    7. Any other procedures necessary to implement the provisions of the Act.

(Section 630.11.)

14. Defines various purposes of and terms used in the Act. (Sections 630.01-630.11.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: The author explains the reason for the bill as follows:

The expedited jury trial (EJT) option was executed in 2011 to help courts deal with overloaded dockets that were the result of major budget cuts and courtroom closures. EJTs are ideal for cases involving smaller dollar amounts that do not involve catastrophic injuries, cases that often affect lower-income workers. These cases are prone to being lost in the system and leaving vulnerable Californians without compensation. The EJT statute is set to sunset January 1, 2016.

Effectiveness of the Expedited Jury Trial Program in Streamlining Trial Court Congestion: The goal of the EJT in California has been to promote the speedy and economical resolution of civil cases in order to conserve judicial resources. Participation has been completely voluntary. The applicable rules of procedure have been designed to be flexible and a reduced jury size is employed in the trials. The trials are completed in approximately one day. However, since its January 1, 2011 inception date, this new trial option has not been used as frequently as originally anticipated.

According to an informational report submitted to the Judicial Council on January 30, 2015, 39 of the 58 counties reported data on the use (or non-use) of EJTs in their superior courts from January 1, 2011 to August 31, 2014. Of those 39 counties, 25 reported that no EJTs had been conducted during the reporting period. The 14 remaining counties reported that one or more EJTs were conducted during the reporting period. A compilation of the figures from those 14 counties shows that a total of 156 EJTs were conducted during the entire reporting period. For individual courts, the percentage of EJTs ranged from 2% to 9% of the jury trials conducted during the reporting period.

A Need for Adjustments to the Act’s Existing Provisions by Practitioners: Taking into consideration the small percentage of jury trials which have been conducted pursuant to the EJT program, an informal working group has been formed to discuss how the program could become more attractive to parties and more beneficial to the overburdened court system. The working group consists of many of the same stakeholders who urged enactment of the Expedited Jury Trials Act in 2011. They are dedicated to seeing greater utilization of this trial option. It is very likely that once the group has reached a consensus on the type of adjustments which are needed to make these expedited trials more widespread, it will present its suggestions to the Legislature for further consideration. The members of the working group have agreed to keep the Committee informed of its deliberations and suggestions for amending this bill. The author has agreed to bring the measure back to this Committee for further hearing, if necessary, to allow for review of any amendments.

By removing the sunset date on the EJT program, those expedited trials will remain an option to serve those whose cases do not involve catastrophic injuries or present major time-consuming issues to be resolved, but are significant to the parties involved and worth litigating in a court of law.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the sponsor, the Consumer Attorneys of California, the EJT format provides resolution of cases while saving time, expense and court resources.

Previous Related Legislation: AB 2284 (Evans), Chapter 674, Statutes 2010 established the Expedited Jury Trials Act.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Consumer Attorneys of California (sponsor)

California Association of Joint Powers Authorities

California Chamber of Commerce

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Khadijah Hargett / JUD. / (916) 319-2334