California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB644

Introduced
2/14/17  
Introduced
2/14/17  
Refer
3/2/17  
Refer
3/2/17  
Report Pass
4/6/17  
Report Pass
4/6/17  
Refer
4/17/17  
Refer
4/17/17  
Report Pass
4/20/17  
Report Pass
4/20/17  
Engrossed
5/1/17  
Engrossed
5/1/17  
Refer
5/1/17  
Refer
5/1/17  
Refer
5/10/17  
Refer
5/10/17  
Report Pass
7/12/17  
Report Pass
7/12/17  
Enrolled
8/31/17  
Chaptered
9/25/17  
Chaptered
9/25/17  
Passed
9/25/17  

Caption

Civil procedure: pleadings.

Impact

If enacted, AB 644 will impact the way pleadings are handled in California civil courts by introducing a 'meet and confer' requirement before filing a motion to strike or for judgment on the pleadings. This provision encourages parties to collaborate in resolving objections informally before resorting to formal motions, potentially reducing court congestion and fostering more amicable resolutions. The automatic 30-day extension for filing motions in the event of an unsuccessful meet and confer process is a notable aspect promoting fairness in litigation timing.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 644, introduced by Assemblymember Berman, aims to amend sections of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to pleadings and motions in court. The bill seeks to facilitate the amendment of pleadings by allowing parties to amend their documents without obtaining prior approval from the court, specifically in cases where a motion to strike has not yet been filed. This provision is designed to streamline procedural efficiency, enabling litigants to make necessary corrections or updates to their filings as cases progress.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 644 appears generally supportive among legal practitioners, as it modernizes procedural aspects of civil litigation. Advocates have praised the bill for simplifying processes and enhancing flexibility for parties involved in litigation. However, some concerns have also been expressed regarding the potential for abuses of the amendment process, particularly if parties attempt to amend pleadings late in the proceedings without sufficient justification.

Contention

A key point of contention addressed in Assembly Bill No. 644 is the amendment limitation policy. The current law allows a maximum of three amendments absent specific conditions under which parties can request additional amendments. The alignment of these provisions with the new requirements for meet and confer processes raises questions about the practical implications for litigants, particularly regarding the balancing of judicial efficiency with the rights of parties to amend their pleadings.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB1756

Committee on Judiciary: judiciary omnibus.

CA AB1931

Criminal procedure: protective orders.

CA SB78

Criminal procedure: factual innocence.

CA AB600

Criminal procedure: resentencing.

CA AB1755

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

CA AB88

Criminal procedure: victims’ rights.

CA AB2347

Summary proceedings for obtaining possession of real property: procedural requirements.

CA AB2049

Motions for summary judgment: filing deadlines.

CA SB235

Civil discovery.

CA AB539

Unruh Civil Rights Act: high-frequency litigants.

Similar Bills

CA AB3062

Civil actions: pleadings and motions.

CA AB1756

Committee on Judiciary: judiciary omnibus.

CA AB3364

Judiciary omnibus.

CA AB1234

Employment: nonpayment of wages: complaints.

CA AB1245

Resentencing.

CA AB2097

Residential, commercial, or other development types: parking requirements.

CA AB124

Criminal procedure.

CA SB577

State Government.