SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Legal Newsline) -- While California lawmakers are traditionally busy in their home districts during autumn, after the state Legislature recesses, this year they will be called into at least three special sessions to address a bevy of complex issues.
Not among them is legal reform, which proponents say would help kick-start California's lagging economy and draw new industry to the Golden State, where unemployment has topped 12 percent, up from 7.8 percent a year ago. Last month alone, employers cut 39,000 workers from their payrolls, a state report issued Friday said.
The leader of the state's leading tort reform lobby, John Sullivan, executive director of the Civil Justice Association of California,
told Legal Newsline that some political changes need to take place before lawsuit abuse can be addressed in earnest.
"First, we have to get the Legislature to understand the need; and second, we have to get a governor that goes along with it," Sullivan said. "It's going to be tough, let's put it that way. We just have to keep bad things from happening in the mean time."
Democrats have overwhelming majorities in both Assembly and state Senate, and given the state's trial bar doles out a lot of campaign cash to many Democrats, it its unlikely any meaningful reform could emerge from the state Capitol, legal reformers frequently say.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is in his last year in office, recently won praise for vetoing three bills in the final days of the 2009 legislative session that critics, including CJAC, said would have cost jobs and increased litigation in the state.
The bills would have restricted the ability of insurance companies to cancel individual policies of sick patients unless a patient intentionally lied to the insurer about preexisting conditions, would have made it easier for California workers to sue for alleged age discrimination on the job, and would have made a violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act -- subject to minimum damages of $4,000 -- if a business prohibits the use of any language in or with its establishment.
The California Chamber of Commerce decried the three Democrat-backed proposals as "job killers."
"One lawsuit can really mean the difference between being in and out of business," said Tom Scott, executive director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, a grassroots organization.
In an interview Friday, he said while there are a handful of moderate Democrats in the Legislature who "get it" when it comes to the struggles faced by small businesses, their influence is not strong enough to make the issue part of their caucus's agenda.
"There is no two ways about it: businesses are struggling on every dollar," said Scott, who sits on the board of his local chamber of commerce in Folsom, Calif.
In addition to supporting the legislative work of CJAC, Scott said his group is seeking to educate Californians about the ramifications of lawsuit abuse.
"This state seems to be obsessed with litigation as the answer," he said. "Whether we are driving or shopping there is this side thought, 'Will I get sued?' or will something happen."
So, rather than enact reforms to curb frivolous lawsuits that hobble many small and mid-sized businesses, the Democratic leadership and the Republican governor are turning their attention to other issues they see as more pressing.
Schwarzenegger has called lawmakers back into the 12th, 13th and 14th special session since he's taken office to consider education reforms, a rewrite of the California tax code and an overhaul of the state's water system.
"Tort reform is major issue, but doesn't have quite the same urgency as, say, water," said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College near Los Angeles. "It may come up. Some of the more responsible legislators will talk about it but the political cross-currents remain extremely difficult."
As for pressing for changes to the civil justice system, Scott said he expects that tort reformers will be playing defense at least for the coming years.
He said the state's trial lawyers did not press an "aggressive" agenda during the 2009-2010 legislative session, largely because the trial bar focused its energies at the federal level where they have, among other initiatives, resisted having tort reform as part of the health care overhaul sought by President Barack Obama.
But that will change, he said, in the next session of the California Legislature.
"2011 will be a different story," he said. "The next three to four years in this state are going to be a challenge (for legal reformers in California)."
No reform in California
Back
Recent Entries
- Our watchdog press enabled the global warming hoax 10 Feb 2010
- Climategate takes steam out of global warming litigation 03 Feb 2010
- Courts rule against cities in subprime mortgage suits 27 Jan 2010
- Utah manufacturers protest EPA action 20 Jan 2010
- Memphis jumps on the subprime suit bandwagon 13 Jan 2010
- The case for scrapping product liability 06 Jan 2010
- Facts fudged in smoking ban campaigns 05 Jan 2010
- Public nuisance highlights 30 Dec 2009
- 2009 paint litigation roundup 29 Dec 2009
- Damage caps were an essential piece of tort reform 28 Dec 2009
Browse News by State
Tag Cloud
Superior Court of Santa Clara County v. Atlantic Richfield Co. Amicus Briefs Energy State of North Carolina v. TVA Appeals Legislation Global Warming Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Assn. Lead Paint Cleveland v. Deutsche Bank Subprime Mortgages Litigation Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil Indiana Georgia Ohio California Washington, D.C. North Carolina West Virginia Colorado Wisconsin Rhode Island New York Oklahoma Pennsylvania Federal Clean Air Act Paint Lead paint poisoning State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods et. al. Missouri Public Utility New Mexico Maryland Banking Lending Practices Cigarette Taxes Tobacco Washington Federal Clean Water Act Secondhand smoke Real Estate Product Safety Manufacturing Insurance Public Nuisance Liability Agriculture/Food American Clean Energy and Security Act Gaming Coal Kentucky Mississippi Tennessee Connecticut Restaurants, Bars, etc. Search and Rescue Alabama Oil Alien Tort Statute Auto Alaska State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Assn. et. al. United Kingdom Beer, Wine & Spirits Public drinking Seafood Mercury poisoning Children's Toys Guns Second Amendment Trellvion Gaines v. Sherwin-Williams State of North Carolina v. Tennessee Valley Authority County of Santa Clara vs. Atlantic Richfield Co Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly Ashcroft v. Iqbal Conley v. Gibson Pleading standards State of Illinois v. Wells Fargo Illinois Coal-fired power plant pollutants City of Cleveland v. Deutsche Bank et. al. City of Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil et. al. Endangered Species MTBE City of New York v Exxon Mobil Mass tort abuses Virginia Idaho Grazing rights Wyoming Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Janssen Pharmaceutica Florida Tort reform Colombia Coca-Cola Philip Morris Product labeling Adames v. Beretta Nicaragua Contingency arrangements Pharmaceuticals Medicine Medical liability Connecticut v. AEP Asbestos Poultry litter McDonald v. Chicago District of Columbia v. Heller City of Santa Clara v. ARCO Comer v. Murphy Oil USA Hopi Chevron Travel Priceline.com v. City of Anaheim State attorney general abuses Double Quick v Ronnie Lee Lymas Utah
