SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 470
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No:
Author:
Amended:
Vote:
SB 470
Jackson (D)
7/9/15
21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/14/15
AYES: Jackson, Vidak, Anderson, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hertzberg
SENATE FLOOR: 35-0, 4/27/15 (Consent)
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León,
Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,
Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell,
Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Roth, Runner, Stone, Wieckowski, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hertzberg, Moorlach, Pavley, Vidak
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 7/13/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Civil actions: summary judgment and summary adjudication
SOURCE: California Judges Association
Judicial Council of California
DIGEST: This bill provides that, in granting or denying a motion for summary
judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on objections made to
evidence that the court deems material to the disposition of the motion. This bill
also provides that objections to evidence not ruled on for purposes of the motion
shall be preserved for appellate review.
Assembly Amendments add double-jointing language to avoid chaptering out issues
in the event that both this bill and AB 1141 (Chau), also amending Section 437c of
the Code of Civil Procedure, are enacted into law.
ANALYSIS:
SB 470
Page 2
Existing law:
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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, in
determining whether the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any
material fact.
4) Requires that the summary judgment motion be supported by affidavits,
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.
5) Provides that evidentiary objections not made at the hearing shall be deemed
waived.
6) Holds, in the case of Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 534, 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.
This bill:
1) Adds a provision to the existing summary judgment statute to specify that, in
granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication,
the court need rule only on objections made to evidence that the court deems
material to the disposition of the motion.
SB 470
Page 3
2) Specifies that objections to evidence not ruled on for purposes of the motion
shall be preserved for appellate review.
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.
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/jc-20141212itemN.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
SB 470
Page 4
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 (Reid v. Google, Inc.), that in granting
or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court
need rule only on objections made to evidence that the court deems material to the
disposition of the motion. This bill also preserves objections to evidence not ruled
on for purposes of the motion for appellate review.
Comments
The author writes:
Summary judgment motions have become one of the most time-consuming pretrial 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 appellate review 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 7/15/15)
California Judges Association (co-source)
Judicial Council of California (co-source)
California Chamber of Commerce
Civil Justice Association of California
Fiscal Com.:
No
Local: No
SB 470
Page 5
OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/15/15)
None Received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Judicial Council of California and the California
Judges Association, co-sponsors of this bill, write 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, Judicial Council
writes, “[t]o reduce the burden on trial courts in ruling on numerous objections to
evidence in summary judgment and summary adjudication 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 for purposes of the
motion are preserved for appellate review. This important efficiency proposal is
intended to reduce burdens on trial courts associated with evidentiary objections in
summary judgment and summary adjudication proceedings without resulting in a
corresponding negative impact on the litigants or the appellate courts.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 7/13/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta,
Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu,
Cooley, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines,
Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, 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, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk,
Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooper, Rendon
Prepared by: Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
7/15/15 15:48:13
**** END ****