The most impactful legislation enacted by California relates to motions for summary judgment which are usually filed by defendants in civil cases. In 2003, based on lobbying efforts by the plaintiff’s bar, the Legislature increased the notice period for such motions from 28 days to 75 days which gives plaintiffs substantial time to obtain the evidence necessary to oppose a motion. In 2024, the Legislature again increased the notice period to 81 days and, again buckling to pressure from the plaintiff’s bar, passed legislation barring “new” evidence in a reply to an opposition to a motion.

AB 2283 — Civil actions

What the law currently requires

Existing law authorizes the service of documents in a civil action by electronic means pursuant to rules adopted by the Judicial Council. Existing law requires a court, on and after July 1, 2024, to electronically transmit those documents to a party who is subject to mandatory electronic service, or who has consented to accept electronic service, as specified.

How the bill changes the law

This bill extends the deadline for courts to comply with the requirement described above to July 1, 2025, and makes a conforming change to clarify that court’s electronic transmittal of documents constitutes service of those documents.

AB 1903 — International commercial arbitration

What the law currently requires

1. Existing law provides a framework for the arbitration and conciliation of international commercial disputes. Existing law requires an arbitration agreement subject to this framework to be in writing, specifying that an agreement is in writing if it is contained in a document signed by the parties or in an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams, or other means of telecommunication that provide a record of the agreement, or in an exchange of statements of claim and defense in which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by another.

2. Existing law provides that an arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, order a party to take an interim measure of protection with respect to the subject matter of the dispute, but does not explicitly define “interim measure of protection.”

3. Existing law allows any party to an arbitration to request that the superior court enforce an award of an arbitral tribunal to take any interim measure of protection.

How the bill changes the law

1. This bill further specifies that an agreement is in writing if it is contained in an exchange of electronic mail or in an electronic communication if the information contained therein is accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference.

2. This bill defines “interim measure of protection” to mean any temporary measure by which, at any time prior to the issuance of the award by which the dispute is finally decided, an arbitral tribunal orders a party to:

   • maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute;
   • take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause, harm or prejudice to the arbitral process;
   • provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied; or
   • preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute.

   The bill requires that in most instances, a party requesting an interim measure of protection must satisfy to the arbitral tribunal that it would be irreparably harmed if the measure is not granted, that the harm substantially outweighs the harm likely to result to the party against whom the measure is directed if the measure is granted, and that there is a reasonable possibility that the requesting party will succeed on the merits.

   The bill allows a party to, without notice, request an interim measure of protection along with a preliminary order directing a party not to frustrate the purpose of the interim measure requested.

   The bill also allows a party against whom a preliminary order is directed to object to the preliminary order before the arbitral tribunal. The bill provides that a party requesting an interim measure or preliminary order is liable for any costs and damages caused by the measure or order to any party if the arbitral tribunal later determines that the measure or order should not have been granted.

3. This bill provides that an interim measure issued by an arbitral tribunal must be recognized as final and binding, and may be enforced upon application to the superior court. The bill provides that a superior court may refuse to recognize or enforce an interim measure only under specified circumstances.

AB 2049 — Motions for summary judgment

What the law currently requires

Existing law requires a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication in a civil action or proceeding to be served and filed at least 75 days before the hearing on the motion. Existing law requires an opposition to the motion to be served and filed at least 14 days before the hearing and a reply to the opposition to be served and filed at least 5 days before the hearing.

How the bill changes the law

This bill changes the deadline for a party to file a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication to at least 81 days before the hearing on the motion. The bill changes the deadlines for filing an opposition to at least 20 days before the hearing and for filing a reply to at least 11 days before the hearing. The bill also prohibits a party from filing more than one motion for summary judgment against an adverse party without leave of court. The bill also prohibit the introduction of new facts in a reply to an opposition to a motion for summary judgment, codifying the so-called “Golden Rule” applicable to summary judgment motions.

In addition, the bill also allows summary adjudication of legal issues that do not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or duty issue, but only if the affected parties stipulate that the motion would further judicial economy, and if the trial court agrees to authorize filing.

SB 940 — Civil Disputes

What the law currently requires

1. Existing law, the Consumer Contract Awareness Act of 1990 (“Act”), defines a consumer contract as a writing prepared by a seller that provides for the sale or lease of goods or services or the extension of credit, as specified, for personal, family, or household purposes, among other provisions. The Act requires a seller to deliver a copy of a consumer contract to the consumer at the time the contract is signed, and prohibits the waiver of any provisions of the Act.

   Existing law prohibits an employer from requiring specified employees, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California or deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California.

2. Existing law, the Small Claims Act, requires each superior court to have a small claims division, and provides that the small claims court has jurisdiction over specified actions.

3. Existing law, the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”), provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. CAA establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except to the extent that the contract could otherwise be revoked under general contract law principles.

   CAA defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties’ arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. CAA requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrator’s impartiality. CAA requires the disclosure to include, among other things, whether or not the proposed neutral arbitrator has a current arrangement concerning prospective employment or other compensated service as a dispute resolution neutral with a party to the proceeding, or is participating in, or has participated within the last two years in, discussions regarding such prospective employment or service.

4. CAA authorizes depositions to be taken and discovery obtained in arbitration proceedings. CAA deems those deposition and discovery provisions to be incorporated into every agreement to arbitrate specified disputes and provides that those provisions are incorporated into other disputes only if the agreement so provides.

How this bill changes the law

1. This bill, for contracts entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2025, prohibits a seller from requiring a consumer, as a condition of entering into a contract, to agree to a provision that would require the consumer to arbitrate outside of California a claim arising in California or to arbitrate a controversy arising in California under the substantive law of a state other than California. This brings consumer claims in line with the prohibition applicable to employment claims.
2. This bill gives consumers the option to have a dispute adjudicated pursuant to the Small Claims Act if a consumer contract requires a dispute under the contract to be arbitrated and the dispute may be adjudicated pursuant to the Small Claims Act.
3. This bill, in a consumer arbitration case, except as specified, requires the disclosure of any solicitation, made after January 1, 2025, and within the last two years by, or at the direction of, a private arbitration company to a party or lawyer for a party. The bill also prohibits the solicitation of a party or lawyer for a party during the pendency of the arbitration.
4. This bill repeals the provisions deeming deposition and discovery provisions to be incorporated into every agreement to arbitrate specified disputes and providing that those provisions are incorporated into other disputes only if the agreement so provides.
5. Finally, the bill ensures that parties in arbitration can subpoena third-party witnesses in discovery, a right that was limited by the 2020 Sixth District Court of Appeal ruling in Aixtron Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360.

AB 3013 — Courts

What the law currently requires

Existing law authorizes a superior court to appoint official court reporters and specifies the fees for court reporting services. Existing law prohibits courts from using remote court reporting to produce the record of any court proceedings and from expending any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting.

How the bill changes the law

This bill authorizes, beginning July 1, 2025, the Superior Courts of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings.

AB 2505 — Pro bono legal services

What the law currently provides

Existing law, the State Bar Act (“Act”), provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California (“State Bar”), a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. The Act provides that it has been the tradition of those learned in the law and licensed to practice law in this state to provide voluntary pro bono legal services to those who cannot afford the help of a lawyer and further provides that every lawyer authorized and privileged to practice law in California is expected to make a contribution, whether by directly providing pro bono legal services or, if that is not feasible, by providing financial support to organizations providing free legal services to persons of limited means, as specified.

How the bill changes the law

This bill provides that every lawyer should aspire to fulfill their individual commitment to provide pro bono legal services each year and contribute financially to California legal aid organizations. The bill requires an active licensee to report annually whether they have provided pro bono legal services and certain other information through the licensee’s My State Bar online profile on the State Bar’s internet website. The bill requires the State Bar to retain and maintain the reported information for purposes of historical record for at least five years.