California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB984

Introduced
2/16/17  
Refer
3/2/17  
Report Pass
4/20/17  
Report Pass
4/20/17  
Refer
4/24/17  
Refer
4/24/17  
Report Pass
4/25/17  
Refer
4/25/17  
Refer
4/25/17  
Report Pass
5/10/17  
Report Pass
5/10/17  
Engrossed
5/15/17  
Refer
5/15/17  
Refer
5/15/17  
Refer
5/24/17  
Report Pass
6/19/17  
Refer
6/19/17  
Refer
6/19/17  
Report Pass
6/28/17  
Refer
7/13/17  
Enrolled
7/20/17  
Enrolled
7/20/17  
Chaptered
8/7/17  
Chaptered
8/7/17  

Caption

Courts: frivolous actions or tactics.

Impact

The bill's impact on state law is significant as it indefinitely extends the ability of trial courts to impose sanctions for frivolous actions, thereby strengthening court authority to handle obstructive litigation more effectively. By removing outdated provisions related to the timing and requirements for sanction applications, AB 984 aims to reduce ambiguity and enhance the courts' ability to curb bad faith practices without the burden of unnecessary administrative requirements.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 984 amends Section 128.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in California, which pertains to the authority of trial courts to impose sanctions on parties that engage in frivolous litigation tactics. This amendment extends the current provision that allows courts to order a party or their attorney to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by another party due to bad-faith actions or tactics. The legislation aims to deter frivolous or unnecessary delay tactics in civil litigation, promoting more efficient court proceedings.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding AB 984 appears to be supportive among legal practitioners who view the need for a robust mechanism to penalize frivolous litigation. Advocates suggest that this can reduce the burden on the courts and improve access to justice for legitimate claims. However, there may be concerns regarding the potential for misuse of the sanctions provision, possibly deterring parties from pursuing valid claims out of fear of incurring penalties.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the potential broad application of sanctions without proper safeguards, which some critics argue could stifle legitimate legal processes. Additionally, the lack of requirements for maintaining public records concerning sanctions may raise concerns about transparency and accountability within the judicial system. The urgency of this bill should be noted, as it has been enacted to prevent further inconsistencies in court decisions related to frivolous actions, making the immediate application crucial for maintaining legal order.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB439

Special motions to strike: priority housing development projects.

CT HB05525

An Act Concerning Court Authority To Impose Sanctions In Civil Actions.

CA AB2962

Court records: fees.

CA AB539

Unruh Civil Rights Act: high-frequency litigants.

CA AB1785

Pleadings: motion to strike.

FL H0403

Local Ordinances

CA AB1755

Civil actions: restitution for or replacement of a new motor vehicle.

CA AB2230

Civil actions.