Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary.civil Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves reform to let uncontested civil motions be deemed granted after set time, with several amendments
Summary
Senate Bill 173, aimed at speeding resolution of uncontested civil motions by creating a notice-of-uncontested-motion procedure and requiring courts to provide a way for parties to email motions to judges, was passed by the Judiciary Committee with a package of amendments that narrowed scope and added procedural limits.
A substitute to Senate Bill 173 advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee after extended debate and a package of amendments. The bill creates a notice-of-uncontested-motion mechanism intended to prevent motions from languishing unaddressed in state civil courts.
Under the version the committee approved, a party may file a "notice of uncontested motion" if no ruling and no objection have been filed within a designated period (the committee amended the proposal from 90 days to 60 days). Once the notice is filed, a one-week clock begins for the judge to act; if the judge does not act and no hearing was scheduled (hearings toll the clock), the motion may be deemed granted and entered by operation of law. The committee adopted amendments that (1) limit the mechanism to pretrial civil motions, (2) shorten the lapse period to 60 days, (3) change optional docket-review language from "shall" to "may," (4) require any judge with repeated automatic grants over a two-year window to be subject to a docket-management review, (5) make the deeming effective by specifying the motion is "deemed granted and entered," (6) require notices to be included where the bill references motions, and (7) clarify that the review is by the court "at issue."
The sponsor told the committee courts reported a coordination problem: because clerks in superior courts are separately elected, judges are not always notified when motions are filed. The bill requires judges in affected courts to provide instructions (for example, an email address) by standing order or other means so parties can deliver filed motions directly to the court or to a staff attorney. The bill also includes a tolling procedure when a hearing is scheduled and leaves room for judges to deny motions without prejudice if they need more time.
Committee members debated scope (civil vs. criminal), the appropriate lapse period, whether the docket-management review should be mandatory, and where any review reports should be filed or published. Some members expressed support for accountability (one member called it a "tickle of accountability"); others urged making the provision permissive. Several committee amendments were offered as a package, accepted, and the committee voted to pass the bill. The chair announced the bill passes the committee.
