A return to local courthouses hearing personal injury cases

INTRODUCTION

I am very pleased to report that the Los Angeles County Superior Court is announcing today a major decision to gradually close the Personal Injury (PI) Hub courtrooms and return instead to distribution of PI cases around the County to provide improved access to justice and allow increased case management.

BACKGROUND

In and around 2012, the Court established the PI Hub due to the needed closure of Civil Courtrooms resulting from the significant decrease in the Court budget. The PI Hub is now comprised of six courtrooms at the Spring Street Courthouse. PI Hub cases were exempted by our Local Rules from the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act. The principal theory underlying the Hub (then only two courtrooms) was that PI cases required less management than other Civil case types. On filing of the complaint, Final Status Conference and trial dates are automatically set by the Clerk eighteen months later. No case management conference or other hearing is set to ensure a case moves forward. Problems have accumulated: It is routine for judges to determine the complaint has not been served at the FSC - shortly before trial. Most cases are not ready for trial. Scheduling of cases that are not ready for trial precludes scheduling of other cases going to trial where only so many cases can be scheduled for trial at a time. The inventory of the PI Hub courts has increased from lack of ability to manage the volume of cases and increased filings. PI cases are a very broad array of matters. Motion practice has mushroomed. It is difficult for judges to keep up and for the Court to retain research attorneys. The inventory is now over 40,000 cases. Each courtroom has approximately 7,000 cases. Consistent with that growth, the number of courtrooms has grown from the number originally and in turn has required a managing judge to coordinate.

Earlier this year, in an initial effort to address more prompt handling of new "complicated" PI cases, the Court changed where those cases would be heard; namely, in the relevant district instead of to the PI Hub. Pending "complicated" cases continue to be re-routed to Independent Calendar (IC) courts upon determination. The cases deemed "complicated," however, are a tiny fraction of the PI Hub cases. Many other PI cases still allege wrongful death or significant injuries and have difficult issues requiring judicial involvement, including the usual discovery issues. The volume of cases does not allow for motions or Informal Discovery Conferences to be heard on a timely basis or for judges to provide the requisite level of attention to each case that they wish to do.

In June of this year, the Governor signed a budget that increased ongoing funding to the Courts. In anticipation of that budget, Presiding Judge Eric C. Taylor requested each Supervising Judge of a discipline to submit an "Ask." In consultation with Deni Butler, Chief Deputy of Operations, we determined in Civil to think big given this opportunity. Court management approved that Ask.

THE PLAN

In view of the number of PI cases involved, implementation of the plan will be gradual:

During Phase 1, pending cases will continue to be heard in the Hub until sent to Dept. 1 for assignment to a trial court. However, effective October 10, 2022, all newly filed cases will now be heard in the district where the incident occurred, except for cases originating in the Central District - which during Phase 1 will continue to be heard as they are now - either in the PI Hub courtrooms or if they are "complicated," as defined in the relevant PI Hub Standing Order, in IC courtrooms. As was true prior to establishment of the Hub, plaintiffs will not have an option to file a PI case in the relevant district or in Central. You will see amendments to Local Rules 2.3, 3.23 and 3.24 and the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum accordingly. To address the number of new cases to be heard in IC courts in non- Central Districts, the Court is opening the following six additional IC courtrooms:

East District, Pomona Dept. A (Judge Salvatore Sirna)

Northeast / North Central, Pasadena Dept. P (Judge Margaret Oldendorf)

North Valley, Chatsworth Dept. F-51 (Judge Randy Rhodes)

South Central, Compton Dept. B (Judge George Bird)

Southwest, Inglewood Dept. 8 (Judge Ronald Frank)

West, Beverly Hills Dept. 200 (Judge Edward Moreton)

The above-referenced districts were assigned an additional IC court initially based on review of the statistics showing where existing PI cases originate based upon zip code information provided -- which show that these districts will have the highest number of new filings. The Court is not opening another IC court in the North District as it already is handling its own PI cases independent of the PI Hub. The Southeast District uses a master calendar, not IC.

Management will monitor the number of filings in the Northwest, South and Southeast Districts to determine at what point those districts may need an additional courtroom. The Court may convert one or more of the now less needed PI Hub courtrooms (which can then be used for that purpose instead) or convert a trial courtroom to an IC courtroom. The Northwest and South Districts had the least anticipated number of new PI cases based upon the zip code analysis. During Phase 1, likely over the next few years, the PI Hub will have less and less cases in its inventory as it disposes of existing cases and receives new cases only for those originating in Central. Roughly twenty percent of PI cases arise in the Central District.

Phase 2 will be the process whereby the Court can in fact close the PI Hub courts when their caseload has significantly diminished. Those courtrooms can then be redesignated as IC courtrooms - to facilitate hearing of PI cases in Central or other districts, depending on need. As with other districts, Central will also hear PI cases in IC courtrooms. The timeline for new cases to be heard in Central IC courts will depend to large degree upon how quickly the PI Hub can reduce its inventory, as well as based on ongoing review of case filings and inventories, including filing to bench officer ratios, in other districts. It is anticipated that per bench officer there will be more PI cases in districts in each non-Central District than in Central - based upon Central having 42 IC courtrooms, as well as the zip code analysis of cases that would be heard in Central.

PRINCIPAL ADVANTAGES

The plan will allow for a return of Civil courtrooms to our different local communities around our vast county - as was the system prior to the last big recession. This move will provide greater access to justice: increasing convenience to litigants, witnesses and counsel. It will also permit jurors from the community where the incident arose to decide the case. Parties will also have one judge sitting in that district from start to finish. Litigants will no longer end up haphazardly on the other side of the county for trial - after being warehoused for several years DTLA beforehand - based on the fortuity of which trial judge is available.

Instead, litigants will have greater certainty about case handling and can stay under the management of one judge. Cases will no longer be transferred to another judge mid-stream (and then potentially to a third judge for trial.) Litigants in PI cases will have to decide at the outset whether to go to the expense of pursuing or defending the case and or if a settlement can be reached; putting the burden back on litigants to move the case. As it stands now, filing a case now does not meaningfully require counsel to then pursue the case until a year and a half later. Eventual assignment of all unlimited Civil cases to IC courts will allow all those cases to receive comparable levels of judicial oversight, regardless of case type. Judges will have greater ability to learn the relevant details of what is involved in each case - as is now less possible in the PI Hub courts. All cases will be subject to case management rules. Judges will have greater ability to ensure that only those cases which plaintiffs intend to pursue remain pending. Judges can work with litigants from the beginning to assure faster resolution where possible. Litigants will have clearer expectations and more predictability as to how their case will be handled. You can provide stronger advice to your clients knowing better what is likely to happen.

I am pleased that the leadership of both sides of the v., CAALA and ASCDC, strongly support this return to local case handling in allowing for greater predictability in case disposition and in increased case management; in turn, allowing for faster resolution. I have no doubt they will provide continuing education related to the new challenges and responsibilities in bringing and defending PI cases in IC courts - rather than in the PI Hub. The Court also appreciates the support of the leadership of the LA Chapter of ABOTA, as well as of the Litigation Section of LACBA. This plan will allow for greater coordination among the Bench and Bar through lawyers in local communities being able to work more frequently with judges in those areas. I am informed regional bar associations are also very interested in returning to their District courthouses having further Civil operations.

CONTINUED MONITORING

The Court recognizes the large inventories of each IC courtroom already; especially given case build ups due to COVID. For this reason, the plan contemplates gradual implementation. Undoubtedly, the plan will still result in increased caseloads for my colleagues. I wish to recognize the hard work of the judges in Civil keeping up with handling the high volume of these cases as best they can. This plan attempts to minimize handling of additional cases as much as possible: At the outset, those in IC courtrooms in affected districts will now have a proportional number of cases taken away to build an inventory for the new IC courtroom. New case filings will not be all at once. PI Cases will typically still require less management than other case types - as has been true previously. We will carefully monitor the level of increases to determine what further adjustments to make, including possible further conversion of other courtrooms. Case management will, however, surely avoid the huge inventories that have built up in the PI Hub - with the resulting delays in cases being able to go out to trial or for basic motions to be heard. Further, we intend to incorporate a greater level of alternative dispute resolution in management of these cases along the lines of the Resolve Law LA remote MSC program (ResolveLawLA.com) now successfully functioning in the PI Hub courtrooms.

CONCLUSION

The Court asks for your support and cooperation in the rollout of this significant initiative and invites your continuing input as we take on this new challenge in pursuit of greater justice to those whom we all serve.