SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 470
CONSENT
Bill No:
Author:
Amended:
Vote:
SB 470
Jackson (D)
4/22/15
21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/14/15
AYES: Jackson, Vidak, Anderson, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hertzberg
SUBJECT: Civil actions: summary judgment
SOURCE: California Judges Association
Judicial Council of California
DIGEST: This bill provides 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 provides that any and all objections not ruled
upon are deemed overruled and preserved on appeal.
ANALYSIS:
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.
SB 470
Page 2
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 the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it
deems material to its disposition of the motion for summary judgment.
2)
Specifies that any and all objections not ruled on are deemed
overruled and preserved on appeal.
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
SB 470
Page 3
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
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 the court
need rule only on objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of
the motion for summary judgment. This bill also preserves any and all objections
not ruled upon on appeal by deeming those objections overruled.
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
SB 470
Page 4
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No
Fiscal Com.:
No
Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 4/21/15)
California Judges Association (co-source)
Judicial Council of California (co-source)
California Chamber of Commerce
OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/21/15)
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, “[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.”
Prepared by: Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
4/22/15 16:20:34
**** END ****