Bill Summary for Bill Number HB09-1305

Date: 03/19/2009

Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB09-1305

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Votes: View-->	Action Taken:
Adopt prepared amendment L.002 (Attachment B). Th Refer House Bill 09-1305 to the Committee of the W	FAIL PASS

01:38 PM -- House Bill 09-1305

Representative Levy, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 09-1305 concerning limitations on the requirements for cost bonds in civil lawsuits. The bill allows the court or a defendant to require a cost bond, of not more than $5,000, from a nonresident who files a lawsuit in Colorado. A cost bond pays for the fees in a lawsuit, including filing and court fees. If the nonresident does not file a cost bond when it is required, the court shall dismiss the lawsuit. Current statute requires cost bonds from nonresidents without a specified limit. This bill caps any cost bond at a maximum of $5,000. The court or a defendant in a case may require a cost bond to ensure that the fees in the case can be paid if the plaintiff loses the case; however, the provisions of these statutes are rarely used. Representative Levy stated that existing law is being used to deny access to the courts for what could be a meritorious claim.

01:47 PM -- Jeff Ruebel, Colorado Defense Lawyers Association, spoke in opposition to the bill. Mr. Ruebel explained the purpose of cost bonds and discussed the current structure of Colorado law with regard to cost bonds. He stated that current law does not deny access to the courts if a defendant is indigent. He talked about situations in which nonresident plaintiffs are required to provide a cost bond in Colorado. Mr. Ruebel talked about the Walcott v. District Court case, in which the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that dismissal of a case cannot be based solely on the plaintiffs' inability to pay costs or indigency. Most cost bonds are requested by defendants in cases with an out-of-state plaintiff. Courts lose jurisdiction over a nonresident plaintiff after a judgment is entered. Colorado courts do not have the ability to require a plaintiff to undergo an examination of assets after a judgement is entered if the plaintiff resides in another state, so defendants must protect themselves with cost bonds. Mr. Ruebel expressed concerns with capping the amount of the cost bond at $5,000 because litigation is expensive and $5,000 will not cover most costs. He also indicated that there is some potential ambiguity in removing language about the attorney of the last named plaintiff on page 4, lines 5 through 8, of the bill. He suggested some alternative language that would be a better solution. He stated his support for a potential amendment from the Civil Justice League. Mr. Ruebel responded to questions from the committee about the use of cost bonds under current law.

02:14 PM -- Curt Zelepugas, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. Mr. Zelepugas related details of his experience as a plaintiff in a civil suit that involved a $50,000 cost bond, which he was unable to pay. He distributed some examples of cases in which cost bonds were required (Attachment A).

02:20 PM -- Sharen Stamp, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. Ms. Stamp related details of her experience as a plaintiff in a civil suit that involved a cost bond, which she believes denied her access to the courts.

02:25 PM -- Alisha Robles, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. Ms. Robles discussed details of her experiences as a plaintiff in a civil suit involving a cost bond. She stated that the law currently requires plaintiffs to pay a fee to access the courts if they reside in another state, but does not require nonresident defendants to post the same sort of cost bond.

02:28 PM -- Natalie Brown, Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, spoke in support of the bill. Ms. Brown believes the bill will open up access to the courts to people who are currently denied such access. She stated her opinion that cost bonds are being used as a tactic to keep poor people and those in the middle class out of the courtroom. She asked the committee to bring Colorado in line with most other states to give the majority of people access to the courts. Because the imposition of a cost bond is discretionary, there is no chance of having it overturned on appeal. She responded to questions about the discretion allowed to judges under the current statute with regard to determining indigence and the requirement of cost bonds.

02:41 PM

Representative Levy wrapped up her presentation of the bill and asked for a favorable recommendation.


BILL:	HB09-1305
TIME:	02:47:59 PM
MOVED:	Gardner B.
MOTION:	Adopt prepared amendment L.002 (Attachment B). The amendment gives the court the discretion to increase the amount of the cost bond over the $5,000 in some cases. Members of the committee commented about the amendment. The motion failed on a vote of 4-7.
SECONDED:	Roberts
		VOTE
	Apuan	No
	Court	No
	Gardner B.	Yes
	King	No
	Miklosi	No
	Pace	No
	Roberts	Yes
	Ryden	No
	Waller	Yes
	McCann	Yes
	Levy	No

Not Final YES: 4 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	HB09-1305
TIME:	02:57:04 PM
MOVED:	Levy
MOTION:	Refer House Bill 09-1305 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. The motion passed on a vote of 9-2.
SECONDED:	Ryden
		VOTE
	Apuan	Yes
	Court	Yes
	Gardner B.	Yes
	King	Yes
	Miklosi	Yes
	Pace	Yes
	Roberts	No
	Ryden	Yes
	Waller	Yes
	McCann	No
	Levy	Yes

Final YES: 9 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS