The Judicial Council of California held its first emergency meeting on March 28, 2020 and unanimously approved a number of temporary measures to give courts flexibility to continue to provide essential services to the public while protecting health and safety during the current COVID-19 pandemic. On April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council held a second emergency meeting, a “telemeeting,” open to the public to listen, to consider a slate of additional temporary emergency rules in response to the COVID-19 health crisis. Several of the rules are key to civil litigation.
Statute of Limitations
Given Constitutional imperatives, the superior courts have had to shift their resources to address the most urgent criminal actions. The disruption to court operations will have long-term repercussions on the workload of the superior courts, and civil trials of less urgent matters are likely to be the last to be resolved in the courts’ increasing backlog. To protect the rights of litigants in civil proceedings and to address the long-term backlog of civil actions, the Judicial Council approved an emergency rule [Rule 9] tolling the statute of limitations for all civil causes of action. This rule will take effect April 6, 2020 and will toll the statute of limitations to 90 days after the Governor lifts the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Time within which to bring civil actions to trial
The Judicial Council approved an emergency rule [Rule 10] providing a six month extension of the statutory limits on the time to bring a civil action to trial.
For all civil actions filed before April 6, 2020, the time within which to have a matter brought to trial per Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 is increased by six months (for a total of five years and six months).
For all actions filed before April 6, 2020, if a new trial is granted in the action, the emergency rule will allow an increase by six months to three years within which the action would otherwise have to again be brought to trial per Code of Civil Procedure section 583.320 (for a total of three years and six months).
Unlawful Detainer Actions
At a time when people are being urged to stay at home to protect public health and safety, unlawful detainers are particularly problematic for two reasons: (1) they require very fast legal responses (within five days) from defendants who are often self-represented and at a time when court self-help centers and legal aid services are not readily available; and (2) when involving residential property, they threaten to remove people from the very homes in which they have been instructed to remain . Currently the summons that must be issued on the filing of an unlawful detainer complaint instructs the defendant that a formal response must be made within five days. The Governor’s Executive Order helped the crisis by providing an extended answer period to, and banning the enforcement of evictions for, residential tenants who have suffered COVID-19 pandemic-related income loss and meet certain other requirements.
At this stage it is impossible to tell from the face of an unlawful detainer complaint whether a tenant might be eligible for the extended answer period and protection allowed by the Governor’s Executive Order. Accordingly, in an effort to address the crisis, the Judicial Council approved an emergency rule that will preclude a court from issuing summonses on unlawful detainer complaints. [Rule One] Additionally, a court may not enter a default or default judgment for restitution in an unlawful detainer action for failure by the defendant to appear unless the court finds that the action is necessary to protect public health and safety and the defendant has not appeared in the action within the time provided by law. Lastly, any trial set in an unlawful detainer proceeding as of April 1, 2020 must be continued at least 60 days from the initial date of trial. This rule will remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor declares that the state of emergency related to COVID-19 pandemic is lifted, or until amended or repealed by the Judicial Council.
Foreclosures
The economic hardships brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic mean that many homeowners will have difficulty making mortgage payments for the same reasons that tenants will have difficulties making rent payments. The Federal Housing Finance Agency has directed certain federal lenders to suspend foreclosures during this crisis, but there are many millions of home mortgages still subject to foreclosure. The Council’s second emergency rule [Rule Two] will stay court proceedings on judicial foreclosure actions until 90 days after the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic is lifted, toll the statute of limitations for filing such actions for that same period, and continue the deadlines for exercising any claims of redemption on foreclosure sales. This rule will remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor declares that the state of emergency related to COVID-19 pandemic is lifted, or until amended or repealed by the Judicial Council.
Temporary Restraining Orders
In times of crisis, many individuals, including victims of domestic violence, are more vulnerable as access to the courts and social services become more limited. To ensure that litigants throughout California have access to court services statewide, and to ensure that individuals needing protection have valid and enforceable orders during court closures, the Judicial Council approved an emergency rule [Rule Eight] that will take effect immediately and provides for the following:
- Any emergency protective orders issued pursuant to Family Code section 6250 that is issued or set to expire during the state of emergency, must remain in effect for up to 30 days from the date of issuance.
- Any temporary restraining order or gun violence emergency protective order, issued or set to expire during the state of emergency, must remain in effect for a period of time that the court determines is sufficient to allow for a hearing on the long-term order to occur, for up to 90 days from the date of the issuance.
- Courts may automatically extend any criminal protective order that is set to expire during the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic period, for up to 90 days, to allow the matter to be heard by the court.
- Courts must provide a means for the filing of ex parte requests for any temporary restraining order. Courts may do so by providing a physical location, drop box, or, if feasible, through electronic means.
- Courts may allow e-signatures for restraining order requests.
- If a Respondent appears at a hearing by video, audio, or telephonically, and the court grants an order, in whole or part, no further service is required upon the respondent for enforcement of the order, provided that the court follows the requirements of Family Code section 6384.
- Any orders issued by a court modifying the duration or expiration of orders subject to this rule, must be transmitted to the Department of Justice through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), as provided in Family code section 6380, without regard to whether they are issued on Judicial Council forms, or in another format during the state of the emergency.
Remote Depositions
Under current law, a party deponent is required to attend a deposition in person, and a nonparty deponent may appear remotely only with the permission of the court upon a finding of good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.310(b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1010(c) and (d).) In an effort to afford litigants a means to continue with depositions during these difficult times, the Judicial Council sought means to allow for depositions without the presence of the deposition officer in the same room as the deponent. Emergency Rule [Rule No. Eleven] allows the parties to elect that a deposition may proceed with a party or non-party deponent and confirms that the deponent is not required to be present with the deposition officer at the time of their deposition.
In sum, the Judicial Council confirms that perfect solutions in an imperfect time are unattainable. Many of the emergency orders are topics that would typically take months to establish, yet were addressed in short order in light of the circumstances and the need to balance the health and safety needs of the community, the collective efforts to flatten the curve, and the best means to continue to allow access to justice during a crisis. While modifications are possible and likely to follow, these emergency orders were, for the most part, unanimously approved for immediate effect.
Questions
Kronick attorneys across all of the firm’s practice groups – Public Agencies, Natural Resources, Labor & Employment, and Business/Healthcare – will continue to provide clients and the community with ongoing updates and advice regarding COVID-19 related issues as developments warrant. Please feel free to contact us for assistance with issues arising from the current health crisis.