Your turn to comment on proposed rules

The Judicial Council’s Rules and Projects Committee (RUPRO) has approved the circulation for public comment of various rule and form proposals by the Appellate Advisory Committee. These proposals have now been posted on the California Courts website at:  http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-invitationstocomment.htm under the “Appellate” link.

(Proposals that appear to be most relevant to those in civil appellate practice are linked below.)

Appellate: Appendixes (PDF, 136 KB)
Item Number: SPR15-06
Deadline for Comments: June 17, 2015 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment OnlineOr, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Based on a suggestion received from an attorney, the proposal would amend the rule governing the use of appendixes in lieu of clerk’s transcripts in unlimited civil appeals to eliminate the provision encouraging parties to prepare a joint appendix.

Electronic Service: Authorization of Electronic Service on Trial and Appellate Courts (PDF, 184 KB)
Item Number: SPR15-02
Deadline for Comments: June 17, 2015 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment OnlineOr, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposal would amend rules 2.251 and 8.71 to authorize electronic service on consenting courts. There is some ambiguity in the rules regarding whether electronic service is authorized not only by, but also on, a court. The proposal would add language to clarify that electronic service on a court is permissible under the rules. It originated from the court executive officer of a superior court.

Civil Practice and Procedure: Evidentiary Objections in Summary Judgment Proceedings (PDF, 691 KB)
Item Number: SPR15-09
Deadline for Comments: June 17, 2015 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment OnlineOr, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

To reduce the amount of immaterial facts and evidence that are presented in motions for summary judgment, the proposal would amend rules relating to summary judgment motions. Specifically, rule 3.1350 would be amended to define “material facts” and clarify that the separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment should include only material facts and not background facts or other facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion. In addition, rule 3.1354 would be amended to eliminate one example of an objection on relevance grounds to evidence in support of summary judgment. The suggestion that led to this proposal originated with the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Court Efficiencies, Cost Savings, and New Revenue.