Civil actions: pleadings and motions.
The primary impact of AB 3062 is on the procedural landscape of civil actions in California. By requiring a meet and confer process before filing motions to strike or demurrers, the bill aims to foster better communication between litigants and may lead to a resolution of issues without judicial intervention. This is particularly applicable to anti-SLAPP motions, as the bill ensures that both parties have an opportunity to discuss potential resolutions before escalating matters to the court. Additionally, the scope of the crime of perjury may expand due to the requirement for parties to submit declarations under penalty of perjury regarding their meet and confer efforts.
Assembly Bill 3062, introduced by Assembly Member Obernolte, aims to amend various sections of the Code of Civil Procedure related to civil actions, specifically addressing the procedural requirements for motions including demurrers and motions to strike. The bill seeks to establish indefinite meet and confer requirements for parties involved in these legal processes, specifically mandating that parties must attempt to resolve their disputes prior to filing motions. This change is intended to encourage more collaborative and less adversarial legal processes, potentially reducing unnecessary litigation and court congestion.
The sentiment surrounding AB 3062 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that establishing a meet and confer process is a rational step towards reducing the burden on the judicial system and promoting fairer outcomes in civil litigation. Conversely, some critics express concerns that the requirement could introduce delays in the legal process, potentially allowing parties to avoid judicial resolution and delaying access to justice for those seeking timely legal recourse.
Notable points of contention regarding AB 3062 relate to the implications of extending the meet and confer requirements indefinitely. Questions arise about how these requirements may affect the speed and efficiency of legal proceedings, particularly in cases where time is of the essence. There are also discussions about whether the expanded perjury implications could lead to inadvertent legal consequences for parties who mistakenly misrepresent their efforts in meeting and conferring, raising concerns about fairness and potential misuse of the legal framework.