The proposed amendment has significant implications for litigants in California, particularly those involved in civil actions where travel to attend trial can be substantial. By allowing recovery of these travel costs, the bill aims to create a more equitable environment for litigants, potentially leveling the playing field for those who otherwise might be discouraged from pursuing legal action due to prohibitive costs. Additionally, it could lead to more thorough legal representation, as the added recoverable costs may facilitate greater participation from attorneys representing clients with limited resources. Furthermore, the amendment could encourage a greater number of civil cases, contributing to a busier court system.
Assembly Bill 3117, introduced by Assembly Member Kalra, seeks to amend Section 1033.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. This legislation aims to clarify the list of recoverable costs for prevailing parties in civil actions by explicitly adding travel expenses associated with attending trials to the allowable costs. As it stands, existing law allows for a variety of recoverable costs, including filing fees, jury fees, and travel costs for depositions, but does not specify recoverable travel expenses for attending court trials themselves. This addition could enhance the financial support available to litigants who successfully prevail in court, allowing them to recoup more of their expenses incurred in the legal process.
While the bill's intent appears to be constructive, some may contend that adding travel expenses for trials could lead to inflated costs and complicate the litigation process, particularly if there are disputes over what constitutes reasonable travel expenses. Critics might argue that such provisions could be abused, leading to unnecessary litigation over recoverable costs. On the other hand, proponents will likely argue that the benefits of supporting litigants and ensuring they are fully compensated for necessary travel outweigh the potential risks. The ongoing discussions around AB 3117 will likely address these points of contention as stakeholders consider its implications for the legal system.