The Personal Injury Hub phase out and its impact on litigating personal injury cases

The Los Angeles Superior Court's (LASC) decision to phase out the Personal Injury (PI) Hub is welcome news to the Bar, and the Court's leadership is to be applauded for boldly reimagining how personal injury cases will be handled moving forward with the availability of increased ongoing funding to the Courts. Members of both the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles (CAALA) and Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) were instrumental in this and past budget cycles advocating for additional Court funding.

The Court, litigants, practitioners, lay witnesses, expert witnesses and insurance carriers alike have all been working with the PI Hub for the past decade. In the wake of the .com crash of 2008, governmental revenue and budgets were significantly decreased. Despite being a co-equal branch of government, California's courts were no exception to budget reductions and the resulting impact to Court operations. In an effort to address these budget shortfalls, LASC then-leadership established the PI Hub primarily based upon the theory that PI cases - as opposed to other types of civil cases - had fewer contacts with the Court and therefore needed less management. The PI Hub was not established because anyone thought it was a good idea for the management of PI cases. Rather, the PI Hub was established because it was a cost-effective way to address a large number of cases while reducing the number of courtrooms needed to service them. Such a large-scale plan was essential in a court like LASC, the largest court in the country.

While the PI Hub served its intended purpose of reducing cost, its implementation has had a profound impact on how PI cases have been litigated over the past decade - there is at times a lack of urgency to litigate the case, insurance carriers are not under any pressure to offer fair value, trial dates are often pushed well into the future, IDC's or motion hearing dates are challenging to schedule, motions for summary judgment without timely reserving hearing dates are often used as stealth motions to continue trial, if parties appear at the FSC not prepared or want to add experts the case is continued, often well into the future, continuances in general have been routinely granted, ex partes are the rule rather than the exception, cases are potentially sent out to trial anywhere in the county, firm trial dates simply don't exist, and cases deemed "complicated" and reassigned to Independent Calendar (IC) Courts could be returned to Dept. 1 for trial assignment, making the informed use of CCP Sec. 170.6 peremptory challenges difficult, among other issues. Attorneys who have practiced a decade or less have only known this system. While the PI judges are to be commended for their management of a large number of cases, practicing in the Hub at times felt like a MASH surgery unit performing triage.

But like most things in life, everything old is new again. And that is exactly the case with the phase out of the PI Hub and a gradual return to what is effectively the old community court system that was in place prior to the formation of the PI Hub a decade ago. As part of its due diligence leading up to the change, the Court reached out to CAALA and Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) for their input on and reception to phasing out the PI Hub. Both Associations and other PI Hub stakeholders across the spectrum enthusiastically welcome the change. We've had a small taste of the change when the Court announced that starting in May 2022 all newly filed elder abuse, childhood sexual abuse, habitability, products liability, and medical and other professional malpractice cases would be deemed complicated PI cases and assigned to IC courts in the district where they arose. But these cases only represent a small percentage of the PI Hub inventory.

The Court's sweeping plan to assign all newly filed PI cases to IC courts in the district where they arise effective October 10, 2022 is the beginning of the end of the PI Hub as we know it, and will be a return to the local community based courts that predated the formation of the PI Hub. The IC courts being added to the districts will certainly help deal with the increased filings. PI cases arising in Central - representing about 20% of PI cases - will still be assigned to the Hub for the time being. To be clear, all currently pending PI cases (unless deemed complicated) will continue to be heard in the PI Hub and sent to Dept. 1 for assignment to a trial court. There will still be plenty of trial courts throughout the County. As the PI Hub case inventory naturally dwindles over time, LASC will reduce the number of PI Hub courts, potentially re-designating them as IC courts to hear new PI cases in Central or other districts, and eventually doing away with the Hub completely.

Just as the implementation of the PI Hub has had a profound impact on how PI cases have been litigated over the past decade, so too will the return to the old system of having PI cases heard in local community based courts. We know the system works because it was in place prior to the formation of the PI Hub. In fact, LASC's North District in the Antelope Valley continued handling its own PI cases and was never part of the Hub due to the distance. That has worked well for the Court, litigants, witnesses and counsel. But there will no doubt be a learning curve as judges, counsel and insurance carriers adjust - or perhaps more appropriately readjust - to a return to the old procedures. What follows are some of the notable differences in the two systems which counsel in particular should be prepared for, principally based upon a single IC judge managing the case from filing through trial.

Unlike the Hub where cases were exempt by Local Rule from the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act, counsel will be required to litigate cases pending in the IC courts within the confines of the Act. This starts with serving the complaint promptly upon filling, which did not always occur in the Hub. LASC Local Rule 3.110(b) requires that the complaint be served on all defendants and proofs of service filed within 60 days of filing. The Rule further provides that a defendant added by amendment must be served and proof of service filed within 30 days of the amendment. IC judges won't tolerate delay in service absent good cause. If counsel are unable to effectuate personal service, they will need to promptly explore alternative service methods.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the PI Hub and the IC court system is that the Hub does not have Case Management Conferences (CMC's). When done properly, CMC's are a roadmap of the case through trial. Parties are required to meet and confer at least 30 calendar days prior to the CMC and file the CMC Statement (Judicial Council Form CM-110) at least 15 calendar days prior to the CMC. California Rule of Court 3.724; 3.725. At the CMC, the court will typically set the trial and other dates, and counsel will advise the court of the discovery schedule, any significant issues particular to the case, and the potential for alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Counsel should also inquire as to the court's IDC procedures. The scheduling of timely IDC's - by both the court and counsel - is essential for the efficient resolution of discovery disputes. Counsel should familiarize themselves with California Rule of Court 3.727 on the subjects that may be considered at the CMC, and should of course be familiar with the case, including damages and experts. Counsel should take advantage of and not miss the opportunity to proactively move the case forward at the CMC.

With new PI case filings being assigned to the district IC courts, judges in those courts will now be deciding motions that have typically been handled in the PI Hub courts. IC court judges are not completely unfamiliar with these motions since they do arise in other types of cases and complicated PI cases have been handled in the IC courts. This includes the following motions: (1) compelling surveillance evidence; (2) compelling medical and mental exams; (3) limiting or quashing subpoenas for medical records; (4) good faith settlements; and (5) minor's compromises. Perhaps the bigger challenge will be adding PI cases to already crowded IC court dockets and the impact on timely scheduling hearing dates and IDC's, which has been an ongoing issue. The Court has pledged to continue monitoring the assignment of PI cases to IC courts and is forming a committee to provide best practices recommendations to deal with additional caseload.

Because of the IC courts' more active management of their cases, there will be other differences when compared to practicing in the Hub. Judges will now have greater familiarity with the case and a more vested interest in managing it. Continuances will be less likely to be granted absent good cause. The use of ex partes in the IC courts will be less favored, so counsel must therefore be judicious in their use. Counsel will be able to make much more informed use of CCP Sec. 170.6 peremptory challenges with the assignment of an IC judge for all purposes. Illusory trial dates in the Hub will be a thing of the past. Instead, PI cases in the IC courts will have firmer trial dates, providing much greater certainty to litigants, counsel, lay and expert witnesses, and insurance carriers. Firm trial dates will mean greater diligence in completing discovery and designating experts, more and earlier settlements, or a trial that will actually go out on or near the trial date. Gone will be the days of PI cases simply being warehoused in the Hub after filing without litigation, or insurance carriers not being forced to make meaningful assessments of case value. The certainty that comes as cases progress towards trial means PI cases in IC courts will be better positioned to resolve through ADR, including the Resolve Law LA Virtual MSC Program, a public-private partnership spearheaded by the Court, CAALA, and ASCDC, with the support of the Beverly Hills Bar Association (BHBA). More case management will allow the Court and counsel to move cases forward for the litigants and result in greater and earlier disposition of cases on the Court's docket.

Knowing that a case will be filed, litigated and tried in a particular district will also have other benefits. When a case in the PI Hub is sent to Dept. 1 for assignment to a trial court, it could be sent anywhere in the county. For example, under the current Hub system, a case arising out of an accident in Pomona is warehoused in Central and could be sent to Chatsworth for trial. This could mean longer commutes for counsel, parties and, importantly, witnesses. Peremptory challenges have been used as much or more to avoid a particular district's jury pool rather than the assigned trial judge. Attorneys like predictability for themselves and in advising their clients, which has been challenging under the current system. Under the new system - for better or for worse - counsel will know in advance their judge and the local jury pool. A community court system means greater and more consistent familiarity between judges and counsel, pride in the local court and local bar associations, and easier commutes and public transportation routes, particularly for the parties, witnesses and jurors, which can never be underestimated in Los Angeles County.

Although it may take some time to fully implement and require adjustment by the various stakeholders, this system is sure to be better than the PI Hub and a welcome return to local community courts. On behalf of its more than 4,000 members, CAALA is incredibly grateful to partner with the Court, its leadership, and other bar associations to assist in the efficient administration of justice in Los Angeles County.