Civil procedure: special motion to strike.
The proposed changes will eliminate the obligation for individuals to submit duplicates of motions and other legal documents to the Judicial Council for at least three years, as is currently mandated. Proponents argue that this amendment will expedite legal proceedings and reduce unnecessary bureaucratic delays, thereby reinforcing the right of individuals to engage in public discourse without the inhibition of costly legal processes. By allowing the special motion to strike without these formalities, it encourages greater participation in matters of public significance.
Assembly Bill 2129, introduced by Assembly Member Chau, amends Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which pertains to special motions to strike. The current law allows defendants to file a special motion to strike a complaint if it arises from actions in furtherance of their right to express free speech or petition. This is intended to protect against lawsuits aimed at chilling these constitutional rights. The bill seeks to simplify the process further by repealing the requirements for defendants to transmit certain documents to the Judicial Council upon filing a special motion, effectively reducing administrative burdens on parties involved in such cases.
However, there are potential points of contention surrounding this bill. Critics may argue that repealing the Judicial Council's record-keeping requirements could lead to a lack of transparency in cases involving special motions to strike. There are concerns that eliminating the need to maintain public records for such motions could undermine accountability, as it becomes harder to track the number of cases that invoke this procedure, thereby erasing a layer of oversight. Additionally, while the law aims to protect free speech, there are fears that it may inadvertently make it easier for powerful entities to silence dissenting voices by utilizing the special motion to strike too liberally.