Page 1
Cantil-Sakauye Lifts Four Emergency Orders As of April 30
Committee Chairs to Ask Judicial Council to Set June 30 Sunset Date for Rules Stemming From Pandemic
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A return to normalcy in the courts is in sight with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s announcement yesterday of the rescission on April 30 of four emergency measures that were put into effect by her on the heel of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s declaration, two years ago today, of a state of emergency based on the COVID-19 pandemic.
On Wednesday, five chairs of Judicial Council committees told of their plan to ask the policy-making body at its meeting on March 11 to lift all statewide emergency court rules as of June 30.
Newsom last week lifted several pandemic-related executive orders.
In yesterday’s action, the chief justice set April 30 as the sunset date for orders increasing the time to hold a preliminary hearing from 10 to 30 days, authorizing courts to extend by up to 60 days the deadline for bringing civil cases to trial, suspending court rules that would preclude holding remote hearings through technology, and permitting pandemic-related local rules from being put into effect without a 45-day public comment period.
Chief Justice Comments
Cantil-Sakauye commented:
“These events mark an important and hopeful change as the residents and government of our state transition to a semblance of pre-COVID-19 California.”
The proposed changes in state rules were set forth in a memorandum to Superior Court presiding judges and executive officers. It was signed by Court of Appeal Justice Marsha G. Slough of the Fourth District’s Div. Two, chair of the Executive and Planning Committee; San Diego Superior Court Judge David M. Rubin, chair of the Judicial Branch Budget Committee and Litigation Management Committee; San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Kyle S. Brodie, chair of the Technology Committee, Monterey Superior Court Judge Maria O. Anderson, chair of the Legislation Committee; and Court of Appeal Justice Carin Fujisaki of the First District’s Div. Three, chair of the Rules Committee.
Eight Rules
They are recommending rescission at the end of the fiscal year of these measures:
•Emergency Rule 3 (Remote technology in criminal proceedings);
•Emergency Rule 5 (Criminal appearance waivers);
•Emergency Rule 6 (Juvenile dependency proceedings);
•Emergency Rule 7 (Juvenile delinquency proceedings)
•Emergency Rule 8 (Temporary restraining or protective orders)
•Emergency Rule 9 (Tolling of statutes of limitations for civil causes of action)
•Emergency Rule 10 (Extensions of time in which to bring a civil action to trial)
•Emergency Rule 13 (Effective date for requests to modify support)
Rule 1, relating to unlawful detainers, expired by its own terms on Swept. 1, 2020, and Rules 2,4,11, and 12 were previously removed.
The committee chairs remarked:
“We believe it is important to continue addressing the criminal case backlog, maintaining continuity of operations, and improving efficiencies in criminal cases. Accordingly, we will pursue legislation that authorizes remote appearances in criminal matters with the consent of the defendant.”
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company