Skip to content
Subscribe

Independent Voter Project Conference: CA Courts Shouldn't Become A Money-Making Enterprise

Published:

In 2015, Forbes magazine ranked California 48th out of 50 in regulatory environment. So why is the world’s 8th largest economy behind Rhode Island when it comes to business climate? Some of the answers were the topic of discussion during the Independent Voter Project’s annual Business and Leadership conference.

Four days of conversation among business leaders and members of the California legislature bore out some of the challenges facing the country’s most populated state. Topics entailed an unintended legal vulnerability in insurance rate policy, disposal of pharmaceutical products, an emerging phenomenon of ‘mass-action’ lawsuits, and the common-sense solutions that can protect consumers and businesses alike.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of California’s legal system will play the key role for preventing regulatory catch-22’s from adding to the Golden State’s already dismal regulatory climate.

Kim Stone, president at Civil Justice Association of California, summed up the sentiment by saying, “We have this problem of extortionate lawsuits and it’s not even working.”

In each one of the highlighted policy areas, a common thread emerged: California’s courts too often become a place for legal strong-arming and intimidation rather than a medium for impartial justice.

For Stone, it’s a problem that can easily sink any small business. When it becomes too easy to cash in on the legal system, no one is going to try to start or grow a business in California. She added, “That’s the public policy failing.”

As a result, regulations on domestic businesses aren’t working as intended and are easily taken advantage of through minor technicalities. This ultimately serves neither the intended goal of the law nor results in positive outcomes for businesses or even consumers. Opportunistic actors are taking advantage of previous policies, which are not being enforced as intended.

How is this problem impacting business in California?

  • What seemed like a relatively minor technical change to the definition of ‘proceeding’ with respect to insurance rate changes in 2007 has opened the gate for opportunistic litigants to delay normally routine court proceedings. This has left Californians with a substantially longer rate-change process than most other states while consumers are stuck in Court until enough legal fees are collected to warrant the investment.
  • Pharmaceutical providers are trying to comply with product reclamation rules passed by local counties, but the mandated programs are having little impact. To add insult to injury, the businesses participating in the program are getting fined for being in receipt of non-recognized substances that were never supposed to be collected anyway.
  • The fairly recent development of mass-action lawsuits conglomerate residents of multiple states into one lawsuit. Usually it is filed in California due to plaintiff-friendly court policies. Consequently, California courts are filling up with lawsuits where many plaintiffs are not CA residents and don’t receive adequate legal representation.

With all these issues now on the table, examining exactly where the current policy failings lie is the next step. Ironically, in changing current rules and regulations, there's always the danger of unforeseen consequences leading once again to ineffective and inefficient government bureaucracy.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.
Preparing the article

Independent Voter Project Conference: CA Courts Shouldn't Become A Money-Making Enterprise

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us