CALIFORNIA STATE & FEDERAL SURVEY (Slomanson’s Top 10)
NOTE: Please comment on at least 1 of the 10 comparisons.

[1] Jurisdictional Amount. State: The Superior Court upper limits are $10,000 (Small Claims), $25,000 (Limited Case), and over $25,000 (Unlimited Case). Federal: The FDC minimum amount is $75,000+ for Diversity cases. There is no minimum amount for Federal Question (FQ) cases.
Questions: Should any of these amounts be changed (up or down)? Should the minimum amount for FQ cases be reinstated? Should the minimum amount for federal Class Action Fairness Act cases (5M) be raised or lowered?

[2] Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) Challenges. State: Failure to attack PJ via a first appearance Motion to Quash waives the PJ defense. When denied, D must seek writ review within 10-20 days. Federal: The affirmative defense of lack of PJ−pled in the answer−preserves that defense. The D may later bring a 12(b)(2) motion. When denied, D normally cannot seek review until after final judgment.
Question: The CA approach requires the parties to resolve a PJ issue at/near the outset of the case−with less information available to the parties. The federal approach facilitates a discovery-stage motion, and appellate review after final judgment. Which system promotes the most efficient resolution of a PJ issue?

[3] Pleading Nomenclature. In 1969, the state Legislature opted to substitute the term “cross-complaint” for the three terms describing how federal Ds may expand the scope of the litigation beyond the main complaint: “counterclaim,” “cross-claim,” and “third-party complaint.”
Question: Should CA reinstate these federal terms to avoid confusion (especially for complex cases involving multiple parties and claims)?

[4] Stating Damages. State: In personal injury and wrongful death cases, P cannot state the amount of compensatory damages in the complaint. In all cases, P cannot state the amount of punitive damages. (Such damages may be claimed in a Statement of Damages.) Federal: The amount of damages must be stated.
…Questions: Because of the perceived impact of an inflated monetary claim, should FRCP 8(a)(3) be amended to follow the CA approach? Alternatively, should CA return to the requirement that all damages be expressly stated in the complaint?

[5] Doe Defendants. State: It would border on malpractice, not to include “Doe” Ds in a complaint, especially in tort cases. Federal: “Doe” Ds are not tolerated. …………………………
Questions: Should federal judges embrace “Doe” pleading practice? Would that make the amendment process more efficient? Should Congress revisit its prohibition on federal judges dismissing cases−removed from state court−due to the presence of a potential CA D?

[6] Anti-SLAPP Motion. State: Ds engaged in constitutionally protected conduct may lodge an Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike, seeking early dismissal of the case−which normally arrests all discovery. Federal: There is no comparable motion.……………………….
Question: While some federal courts have heard and determined anti-SLAPP motions, many/most have not done so. The negative arguments focus on the state procedure’s impact on both Rule 12 (dismissal should result only from the complaint’s “plausibility”) and Rule 56 (the discovery delay frustrates the orderly progression towards resolution via summary judgment). Which system has it right?

[7] Initial Core Disclosure. State: The parties must ask for witness, document, and insurance information during the discovery stage. Federal: The parties must exchange witness, document, P’s computation of damages, and D’s insurance information prior to commencing formal discovery.
Questions: Should CA adopt the federal initial core disclosure model? Alternatively, should the FRCP revert to party-initiated discovery of such matters?

[8] Continuing Discovery Responses. State: A discovery response (that is not incorrect or misleading when given) need not be updated by the responding party. The asking party must subsequently seek updates to earlier responses. Federal: Prior discovery responses must be timely updated by the answering party.……………………………………………………………
Question: Which system has it right?

[9] Summary Judgment Separate Statement. State: A summary judgment motion must contain a Separate Statement, designed to facilitate identification of contested issues. Federal: FRCP 56 does not require such Separate Statements. Some judges allow them, while others prohibit them.
Question: Which system best facilitates resolution of a summary judgment motion?

[10] Jury Size & Verdict %. State: CA civil juries normally consist of 12 jurors (plus alternates). 9 of 12 must concur for a verdict. Federal: Civil juries may consist of 6-12 members. Local rules provide for 6-member juries. The verdict must be unanimous, unless otherwise stipulated.
Question: Is justice best served by a 6- or 12-member jury?

Last rev: 03/28/18