Tort bills toppled
Once again, the advocates from Consumer Attorneys of California in recent weeks faced a flotilla of “tort reform” measures designed to undercut the rights of consumers. Once again, we sunk every last one of the bills, a testimony to not just the efforts of our lobbying squad up here in Sacramento, but also the years of effort by our organization in conjunction with CAALA and other TLAs to build a potent political base each election season to ensure that the statehouse has a fair contingent of lawmakers who understand the importance of the civil justice system.
Before I offer a list of the legislation that we defeated, let me put in a word for our political program. Political Director Lea-Ann Tratten and her team have been putting in long hours reviewing potential candidates, winnowing out who among them is truly supportive of civil justice and thus worthy of our support as trial lawyers. Please take a moment to go to our Advocates Club political action page, review the materials and step up to provide the support that those candidates need heading into the June 5 primary and onward toward the November General Election.
Now without further adieu, here are the “tort deform” bills we defeated:
CLASS ACTIONS
AB 1954 (Nestande) Legal advertising: class actions.
This bill would have required an advertisement soliciting plaintiffs for a class action to include a disclosure stating that a plaintiff in a class action may be financially liable for the attorneys’ fees of the defendant where the defendant is the prevailing party. The bill would specify that a violation of this section by a member of the Bar is a cause for discipline by the Bar.
AB 2043 (Wagner) Appeals: representative actions.
Current law specifies the judgments and orders from which an appeal may be taken to the court of appeal. This bill would have added an order granting or denying class action certification, allowing appeal from the order at the discretion of the court of appeal. The bill would have specified various factors the court would have been required to consider in determining whether to allow the appeal.
AB 2599 (Berryhill, Bill) Unfair competition: private enforcement actions.
This bill would have defined the injury in fact required for a private person to bring suit under Business and Professions Code Section 17200 as damages suffered by each individual plaintiff or member of a class amounting to at least $500, adjusted for inflation, as specified.
SB 1478 (Harman) Appeals: undertaking.
Current law specifies the circumstances in which an undertaking is required in order for the enforcement of a judgment or order to be stayed on appeal, including if the judgment or order is for money or the payment of money, or for costs awarded pursuant to specified provisions. This bill would have provided that the undertaking in these cases shall not exceed $25,000,000, and, if the party posting the undertaking is an individual or small business, as defined, the undertaking shall not exceed $1,000,000.
PREVAILING PARTY FEE PROVISIONS
SB 1556 (Anderson) Civil procedure: attorney’s fees.
This bill would have imposed a prevailing party fee provision.
IMMUNITY FOR RELIANCE ON ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
SB 1374 (Harman) Liability: good faith reliance on administrative regulation.
This bill would have provided that any person who relies upon a written order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy of a state agency shall not be liable or subject to punishment for a violation of a civil statute or regulation in a judicial or administrative proceeding if the person pleads and proves to the trier of fact that, at the time the alleged act or omission occurred, the person was acting in good faith and in conformity with, and in reliance on, an applicable state agency’s written order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy.
EMPLOYMENT
AB 1789 (Morrell) Wage orders: review: private rights of action.
This bill would have eliminated actions brought pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act for wage violations.
AB 2176 (Logue) Employment: meal periods.
This bill would have provided an exemption from the meal period requirements for commercial drivers operating a vehicle that is required to display placards pursuant to a specified statute.
SB 1362 (La Malfa) Meal periods.
This bill would have provided an exemption from the meal period requirements for commercial drivers and other persons who are employed in the transportation. The bill also would have provided that these exemptions apply to wage claims that are pending as of the bill’s date of enactment.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
AB 1848 (Atkins) Physicians and surgeons: expert witness testimony.
This bill would have required a physician and surgeon who is licensed in another state to file an application and fee with the board and receive approval, as specified, prior to offering expert witness testimony related to the practice of medicine in any legal proceeding in the state. A physician and surgeon so approved would be subject to discipline by the board.
JUDGMENT APPEALS
AB 2377 (Huber) Enforcement of judgments: appeals.
Current law specifies the circumstances in which an undertaking is required in order for the enforcement of a judgment or order to be stayed on appeal, including if the judgment or order is for money or the payment of money or for costs awarded pursuant to specified provisions. Current law requires that the undertaking in these cases be for double the amount of the judgment or order unless given by an admitted surety insurer, in which event the judgment would be 1-1/2 times the amount of the judgment or order. This bill would have made the bond discretionary.
SB 1478 (Harman) Enforcement of judgments: appeals.
Current law specifies the circumstances in which an undertaking is required in order for the enforcement of a judgment or order to be stayed on appeal, including if the judgment or order is for money or the payment of money or for costs awarded pursuant to specified provisions. Current law requires that the undertaking in these cases be for double the amount of the judgment or order unless given by an admitted surety insurer, in which event the judgment would be 1-1/2 times the amount of the judgment or order. This bill would have provided that the bond in these cases shall not exceed $25,000,000, and, if the party posting the undertaking is an individual or small business, as defined, the undertaking shall not exceed $1,000,000.
SB 1504 (Kehoe) Claims and judgments against the state: interest.
This bill would have limited the accrual of interest on claims against the state.
ENVIRONMENT
SB 1214 (Cannella) Environmental quality: CEQA judicial review.
This bill would have required a CEQA action in a distressed county to be filed with the Court of Appeal with geographic jurisdiction over the project. Under current law, CEQA challenges must be filed in the Superior Court within 30 days of filing of the notice of approval.
DISABILITY ACCESS LIMITS
AB 1610 (Wagner) Special access: liability.
This bill would have limited access violation suits by requiring a notice and opportunity to cure.
AB 1878 (Gaines, Beth) Disability access: liability.
This bill would have limited access violation suits by requiring a notice and opportunity to cure.
AB 1994 (Huber) Disability access: causes of action.
The bill would have required the adoption of compliance schedule and require issuance of building permits to the owner, agent, or responsible party of the alleged violation. The bill would have required all complaints to be subject to the compliance schedule prior to a cause of action being filed. The bill would also have authorized the county to charge a fee to the owner, agent, or responsible party of the alleged violation for the costs of the program and the compliance schedule.
AB 2282 (Berryhill, Bill) Personal rights: violations: standing.
This bill would have authorized a person aggrieved by an access violation to bring an action seeking relief only if that the person has suffered an injury in fact, the injury in fact was caused by the violation, and the violation is subject to redress.
AB 2325 (Norby) Special access: liability.
This bill would have limited access violation suits by requiring a notice and opportunity to cure.
SB 1163 (Walters) Special access: liability.
This bill would have limited access violation suits by requiring a notice and opportunity to cure.
SB 1186 (Dutton) Special access: liability, as introduced.
This bill would have limited access violation suits by requiring a notice and opportunity to cure.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
