California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB2230

Introduced
2/13/18  
Introduced
2/13/18  
Refer
3/1/18  
Refer
3/1/18  
Report Pass
5/1/18  
Report Pass
5/1/18  
Refer
5/2/18  
Report Pass
5/9/18  
Report Pass
5/9/18  
Engrossed
5/17/18  
Refer
5/17/18  
Refer
5/30/18  
Refer
5/30/18  
Report Pass
6/18/18  
Report Pass
6/18/18  
Refer
6/18/18  
Refer
6/18/18  
Report Pass
7/3/18  
Report Pass
7/3/18  
Enrolled
8/27/18  
Enrolled
8/27/18  
Chaptered
9/10/18  
Passed
9/10/18  

Caption

Civil actions.

Impact

By extending the deadlines for motions related to judgments, AB 2230 seeks to enhance access to justice for parties involved in civil litigation. The bill also modifies requirements related to discovery by allowing courts to mandate a concise outline of discovery disputes instead of a separate statement. This change is aimed at reducing the burden on courts and parties during litigation by simplifying documentation requirements, which can facilitate more efficient case management.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2230, authored by Berman, focuses on amending procedural rules within the California Code of Civil Procedure related to civil actions. The bill aims to extend deadlines and streamline discovery practices. Specifically, it increases the time a party has to file a motion for a new trial or to set aside and vacate a judgment, moving the period from 60 days to 75 days. This extension is intended to allow litigants more time to prepare their motions and promote fairness in the judicial process.

Sentiment

The reception around AB 2230 has been generally favorable, with stakeholders recognizing the importance of ensuring adequate time for litigants to address judicial determinations. Legal experts and practitioners appreciate the bill's intent to clarify and simplify civil procedures, allowing for greater efficiency in court processes. However, there are concerns that while the bill streamlines certain procedures, it may lead to potential delays in the judicial process if extensions of time unintentionally encourage postponements of proceedings.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the potential impact of extended deadlines on the speed of civil litigation. Critics worry that increasing the time frame could lead to prolonging legal disputes, making access to justice more cumbersome. Proponents counter that with proper implementation, these changes can avoid rushed filings and create a more thorough examination of cases. Overall, AB 2230 reflects an effort to balance the need for timely judicial processes with the rights of litigants to fair opportunities in presenting their cases.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1056

Asbestos Tort Trust Transparency Act and trial preferences.

CA SB235

Civil discovery.

KS SB74

Providing for joint liability for costs and sanctions in third-party funded litigation, requiring certain discovery disclosures and requiring payment of certain costs for nonparty subpoenas.

CA AB1521

Committee on Judiciary: judiciary omnibus.

CA AB2651

Civil actions.

KS HB2510

Authorizing a party to obtain discovery of the existence and content of an agreement for third-party funding of litigation under the code of civil procedure.

KS SB54

Substitute for SB 54 by Committee on Judiciary - Limiting discovery and disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements and requiring reporting of such agreements to courts.

CA SB17

Civil discovery: sanctions.