Legislature(2007 - 2008)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/20/2008 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB170 | |
| SB226 | |
| SB247 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 247 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 226
"An Act relating to litigation brought by a vexatious
litigant; amending Rules 3, 4, 12, and 41, Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
Senator Hollis French read his sponsor statement:
SB 226 creates a process in statute for courts to
manage the problem of lawsuits brought by individuals
who are "vexatious litigants."
A vexatious litigant is defined as a person who,
among other things, repeatedly litigates the same
claims or previous adverse decisions against the same
parties, files multiple frivolous lawsuits, repeatedly
files pleadings or motions that are frivolous or in bad
faith, or repeatedly engages in tactics that are
without merit or intended to cause unnecessary delay.
The bill allows the court to impose reasonable
restrictions on vexatious litigants' access to the
court. Under SB 226 a court can require conditions,
such as the posting of security or pre-filing review of
a complaint by a presiding judge, before an action
filed by a vexatious litigant can proceed. Several
states have passed similar legislation to control the
problem of vexatious litigation. The provisions in this
bill are based on California's Code of Civil Procedure.
Vexatious litigation needlessly burdens the
resources of the court system, and creates unnecessary
expense for individuals who are the target of this
litigation in the public and private sectors. It is
certainly important to recognize and protect the
individual's right to litigate claims in our court
system. SB 226 will only affect those few cases that
are clearly without merit. This bill will provide means
for screening out extreme examples of meritless cases
before they are filed. Please join me in supporting SB
226.
10:15:13 AM
Senator Elton inquired about costs to the court system when
making a decision if a litigant is vexatious or not. Senator
French expressed his belief that the costs would be minimal
since the cost of deflecting the lawsuit would be less than
processing the lawsuit. Senator Elton questioned if there
was any discussion on imposing a time limit.
Senator French pointed out that on page 3, line 12-16,
identifies a "vexatious litigant, a person who reacts
without a lawyer, who:
(A) commenced, prosecuted, or maintained as the
plaintiff at least five litigations in state or federal
court, other than small claims actions, during the
preceding seven years
10:17:51 AM
Senator Huggins asked what would happen if the sentence
about "not" having an attorney was removed from the bill
(page 3, line 12-13).
Senator French answered that he did not believe this would
affect the bill or any lawyer, but deferred to the
Department of Law or the court system. Senator Elton
wondered if someone suing multiple individuals over the same
case could be classified as a vexatious litigant.
10:19:23 AM
Senator French deferred the question to the Department of
Law.
10:19:34 AM
SUSAN COX, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
JUNEAU, responded to previous questions by the committee
members. She answered the question regarding an individual
filing lawsuits over a period of time, refraining for a time
period, then resuming again. She indicated that this
legislation was modeled after the California Code of Civil
Procedure, enacted 40 years ago, where there is a process
for having a pre-filing orders vacated. Ms. Cox reiterated
that this legislation does not bar anyone's access to the
courts, only places some restrictions precedent to
litigating for vexatious litigants.
10:23:08 AM
Senator Elton wondered about a person becoming a vexatious
litigant, not over filing too many cases in the exacted time
period, but filing multiple suits against different people
over the same issue, such as a neighborhood situation. Ms.
Cox responded again that the definition requires five
different law suits over a seven year period and all decided
adversely against the filer.
10:25:59 AM
Senator Thomas inquired about how many people would be
considered vexatious litigants if this bill were law today.
Ms. Cox replied that about six people fall into this
definition and another six against the Department of
Corrections. In total, less than twenty people would be
considered vexatious litigants.
10:27:28 AM
Senator Huggins wondered if the sentence regarding attorneys
on page 3, line 12-13, was struck from the bill, what would
be the effect. Ms. Cox remarked that the intention of bill
is directed toward those people who have abused the court
system without the representation of a lawyer. Lawyers are
controlled by contempt of court or ethics regulations.
Senator Huggins suggested it would not hurt if taken out.
Ms. Cox was not sure if it would add or take anything away
from the bill.
10:28:58 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman inquired how the five and seven year number
was arrived at. Ms. Cox responded that it was simply modeled
on the California plan that has been in place for over forty
years.
Senator Elton followed up on Senator Huggins' question about
removing the "attorney" language and asked if this would
become a problem for attorneys. Ms. Cox believed it would
only penalize the plaintiff but there was some confusion in
the language that could affect a lawyer who represented a
vexatious litigant.
10:30:50 AM
DOUG WOOLIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
responded to Senator Elton's question about fiscal impact to
the court system. He does not see any impact but noted that
this bill will certainly be challenged before the court by
the same people it is intended to target.
Senator Elton wondered if Mr. Wooliver saw a negative or
positive fiscal impact. Mr. Wooliver responded that there
could be some time and effort saved by the court but this
bill really targets just a handful of individuals and will
not be used that often.
10:32:29 AM
PETER MAASEN, LAWYER, ANCHORAGE, testified via
teleconference in support of SB 226. He believed this added
a necessary tool for trial judges. Although he opposes
anyone not having access to the court system, he agreed that
sometimes situations can go too far. Mr. Maasen presented a
personal trial case situation where a client repeatedly sued
him and the trial judge when things did not go his way. This
has been a costly situation to him personally and to the
courts.
10:37:00 AM
Mr. Maasen continued explaining the difficulties dealing
with individuals who continue to tie up court time with
multiple litigations. He supported this bill and believes it
will be effective in dealing with such cases.
10:37:40 AM
Senator French elaborated that the bill specifically notes
that this only deals with those individuals who repeatedly
file court cases after they have lost a judgment from the
court. In all cases, the judge has the discretion of
deciding if someone is indeed a vexatious litigant.
10:39:21 AM
SB 226 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
10:39:27 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|