SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 470 (Jackson)
Version: February 25, 2015
Hearing Date: April 14, 2015
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Civil actions: summary judgment
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide that a court, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, need
rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the
motion and would deem any and all objections not ruled upon overruled and preserved
on appeal.
(This analysis reflects author’s amendments to be taken in Committee.)
BACKGROUND
After the filing of a lawsuit, either party to an action may move for summary judgment
by contending that the action has no merit or that there is no defense thereto.
Essentially, the party filing the motion is claiming that all necessary factual issues are
resolved and need not be tried by the court because they are so one-sided. A motion for
summary judgment must be supported or opposed by admissible evidence such as
affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and
requests for judicial notice, as appropriate. In determining whether the papers show
that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court must consider all of the
evidence set forth in the papers, except evidence to which objections have been made
and sustained by the court. If the court finds that there is no triable issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, then
the motion must be granted (which generally disposes of the whole case). If an issue of
fact is presented the court must permit trial thereof, though it may also find that certain
other issues “are without substantial controversy” and grant summary adjudication as
to those issues. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c.) In short, the purpose of the summary
procedure is to provide a method for prompt disposition of actions in which there is no
triable, material issue of fact on which evidence shall be taken.
SB 470 (Jackson)
Page 2 of 5
This bill is the product of a proposal recommended by the Judicial Council’s Policy
Coordination and Liaison Committee, Civil and Small Claims Committee and Appellate
Advisory Committee, to reduce the burdens on trial courts associated with evidentiary
objections in summary judgment proceedings. According to those advisory
committees’ October 29, 2014 report to the Judicial Council, advisory committee
members (including both judges and attorneys) report that time and resources
expended in ruling on objections to evidence offered in support of or in opposition to
summary judgment motions are substantial. (See Report to the Judicial Council, Judicial
Council-Sponsored Legislation: Evidentiary Objections in Summary Judgment Proceedings
(Oct. 29, 2014) (hereinafter, “Report”) <http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc20141212-itemN.pdf> [as of Apr. 4, 2015] p. 2.)
The report cites published opinions that illustrate the large number of objections made
in summary judgment papers and the huge volume of motion papers in overall. (See
Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 532 [“We recognize that it has become common
practice for litigants to flood the trial courts with inconsequential written evidentiary
objection, without focusing on those that are critical [footnote omitted].”]) The report
specifically cites, as an example, the case of Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) wherein
“the moving papers in support of a summary judgment totaled 1,056 pages, plaintiff’s
opposition was nearly three times as long and included 47 objections to evidence, and
the defendant’s reply included 764 objections to evidence.” (Report at pp.2-3, citing 178
Cal.App.4th 243, 249, 250-251 and 254.)
This bill, co-sponsored by the Judicial Council of California and the California Judges
Association, seeks to increase court efficiency by specifying, consistent with a recent
California Supreme Court case, that the court need rule only on objections to evidence
that it deems material to its disposition of the motion for summary judgment. The bill
would also preserve any and all objections not ruled upon on appeal by deeming those
objections overruled.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes any party, pursuant to a specified procedure, to move for
summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no
merit or that there is no defense to it and to move for summary adjudication as to
certain issues in the action or proceeding. Existing law requires the court to grant a
motion for summary judgment if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law. In determining whether the papers show that there is no triable issue as
to any material fact, existing law requires the court to consider all of the evidence set
forth in the papers, except evidence to which objections have been made and sustained
by the court. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(a) and (c).)
Existing law requires that the summary judgment motion be supported by affidavits,
SB 470 (Jackson)
Page 3 of 5
declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which
judicial notice shall or may be taken, and that the supporting papers include a separate
statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which that the moving
party contends are undisputed, as specified. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(b).) Existing
law, among other things, provides that evidentiary objections not made at the hearing
shall be deemed waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c(b)(5).)
Existing case law holds that if a trial court fails to rule expressly on specific evidentiary
objections, it is presumed that the objections have been overruled, the trial court
considered the evidence in ruling on the merits of the summary judgment motion, and
the objections are preserved on appeal. (Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 534.)
This bill would add a provision to the summary judgment statute above to specify that
the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its
disposition of the motion for summary judgment. This bill would specify that any and
all objections not ruled on are deemed overruled and preserved on appeal.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author,
Summary judgment motions have become one of the most time-consuming pre-trial
matters that civil courts handle, as parties on both sides flood the courts with
evidentiary objections. SB 470 is a carefully balanced, court efficiency proposal that
would not only save judges significant amounts of time and resources when
considering huge volumes of summary judgment motion papers, but would also
avoid any harm to the litigants by preserving their rights on appeal with respect to
any properly raised objections that are not expressly ruled upon by the court. . . . In
turn, by reducing the burdens on trial courts associated with evidentiary objections
in summary judgment proceedings, this proposal will allow the trial courts to
handle other motions and proceedings more swiftly.
Judicial Council of California and the California Judges Association, co-sponsors of this
bill, add that “[j]udges may spend hours ruling on evidentiary objections for a single
summary judgment motion. Frequently, the number of objections that pertain to
evidence on which a court relies in determining whether a triable issue of fact exists is a
small subset of the total number of objections made by the parties.” Accordingly, “[t]o
reduce the burden on trial courts in ruling on numerous objections to evidence in
summary judgment proceedings, Code of Civil Procedure [S]ection 437c would be
amended by providing that a court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it
deems material to its disposition of the summary judgment motion, and that objections
not ruled on are deemed overruled and preserved on appeal.”
SB 470 (Jackson)
Page 4 of 5
2. Bill codifies rule consistent with California Supreme Court decision
Existing law, Section 437c of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides that in bringing or
opposing a summary judgment motion, any evidentiary objections not properly made
at hearing are deemed waived. That section also requires the court, in considering in
determining whether the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material
fact, to consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except evidence to which
objections have been made and sustained by the court. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437c,
subds. (b)(5), (c), (d).) This bill would codify a rule, consistent with a recent California
Supreme Court decision detailed below, that would expressly recognize that the courts
need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of
a motion for summary judgment. The bill would deem any objections not ruled upon to
be overruled, thus preserving those objections on appeal.
Prior to 2010 and the California Supreme Court’s decision Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50
Cal.4th 512, the effect of a trial court’s failure to rule on evidentiary objections that were
properly presented was unclear. It was also not clear whether the objection had to be
raised at the hearing (as opposed to in writing before the hearing) in order to be
considered properly presented.
In Reid, the California Supreme Court explained that while the summary judgment
statute requires that the trial court consider all evidence unless an objection to it has
been raised and sustained, “the subdivision does not mandate that, in the absence of
express rulings, the underlying objections are waived on appeal.” (Id. at 526-527.)
“Thus,” the court wrote, “evidentiary objections made ‘at the hearing shall [not] be
deemed waived’ . . . even if the trial court fails to rule on them expressly.” (Id. at 527.)
As held by the court, “if the trial court fails to rule expressly on specific evidentiary
objections, it is presumed that the objections have been overruled, the trial court
considered the evidence in ruling on the merits of the summary judgment motion, and
the objections are preserved on appeal.” In rendering its decision, the court
disapproved its own decisions to the extent that they hold that, when a trial court fails
to rule on objections to summary judgment evidence, the objections are waived and are
not preserved on appeal. (Id. at 527, footnote 5.) The Court also disapproved lower
court decisions to the extent that they hold that litigants must raise written objections
orally at the hearing to preserve them on appeal, or permit the trial court to avoid
ruling on specific evidentiary objections, or otherwise permitted the trial court to avoid
ruling on specific evidentiary decisions. (Id. at 532, footnotes 7 and 8).
This bill appears to be consistent with the Reid decision and would remove any
lingering questions about the effect of a trial court’s silence in its rulings on properly
raised evidentiary objections. While the bill appropriately leaves intact the existing
requirement that the court consider all objections (except evidence to which objections
have been made and sustained by the court) in determining whether or not to grant the
motion, it would arguably reduce the time and resources that courts must spend in
SB 470 (Jackson)
Page 5 of 5
rendering decisions on these motions by recognizing that the court’s express rulings
need only be on those objections it deems material to its disposition of the motion. At
the same time, the bill would appear to avoid any negative impact upon the parties: as
long as the parties properly make an objection at the hearing (either raising the
objection at the hearing, or in writing prior to the hearing), the objection would be
preserved on appeal as though it had been overruled by the court.
3. Author amendments
The following clarifying author’s amendments are to be taken in Committee to address
stakeholder concerns.
Author’s amendments:
On page 3, line 38, strike “may, in its discretion” and insert “need”
On page 3, line 39, strike “made to evidence that is material to the disposition” and
insert “to evidence that it deems material to its disposition”
On page 4, lines 1-2, strike “Objections to evidence that are not on for purposes of
the motion shall be” and insert “Any and all objections not ruled on are deemed
overruled and”
Support: California Chamber of Commerce
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: California Judges Association; Judicial Council of California
Related Pending Legislation: AB 1141 (Chau, 2015), in relevant part, would reenact and
make permanent a sunsetted summary adjudication provision that allows a motion for
summary adjudication that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative
defense or issue of duty, if the parties whose claims or defenses are put at issue by the
motion jointly stipulate as to the issue(s) to be adjudicated and declare that a ruling on
the motion would further the interest of judicial economy, and if the court grants the
motion, having considered any timely objections made by nonstipulating parties. This
bill is currently set for hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 21, 2015.
Prior Legislation: None Known
**************