There are seven (7) days left in the 84^th legislative session. As additional internal deadlines come and go, more bills are falling by the wayside. Of course, it would be premature to say a bill is absolutely dead as long as the Legislature is in session, but any bill originating in the House or Senate that has yet to receive a vote on the floor of either chamber does not have a realistic chance of surviving the regular session unless the text of the bill is added onto another bill via amendment.

In an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff in this update, I have moved the fifty-three (53) monitored bills that are on the verge of extinction to a section entitled “Bills Likely to Fail.” The remaining eighteen (18) monitored bills, even those that are on life support, are listed in the “Bills Still Pending” section. Although only one of the monitored bills has actually made it across the finish line, I have also created a “Bills Signed by the Governor” section.

As in past updates, the bill number links in the “The Week in Review” and “The Week Ahead” sections will take you to the summaries for each bill in the “Bills Still Pending” section.

The Week in Review

The House and/or Senate took action on various monitored bills/resolutions. The actions taken were as follows:

Sent to the Governor for Consideration:

SB 455 – Creation of a Special Three-Judge District Court

SB 627 – Relating to Certain Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for a Libel Action

SB 1116 – Notices or Documents Sent by Mail or Email by a Court, Court Clerk, or Judge

Passed by the full Senate or House:

SB 455 – Creation of a Special Three-Judge District Court (voted out of House committee, passed by full House, and sent to Governor)

SB 512 – Promulgation of Forms for Use in Probate Matters (voted out of House committee and passed by full House)

SB 531 – Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Family Law Cases (voted out of Senate committee, passed by full Senate, and voted out of House committee)

SB 735 – Availability and Use of Certain Evidence in Connection with an Award of Exemplary Damages (passed by full House)

SB 1457 – Bad Faith Patent Infringement Claims (voted out of House committee and passed by full House)

HB 1403 – Defining Health Care Liability Claim for Purposes of Certain Claims (voted out of Senate committee and passed by the full Senate)

HB 1692 – Doctrine of Foreign Non Conveniens (voted out of Senate committee and passed by the full Senate)

Voted Out of Committee Only:

SJR 8 – Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Legislature to Require a Court to Provide Notice to the Attorney General of a Constitutional Challenge to State Statutes (voted out of House committee)

HB 3364 – Appeals of Eviction Suit Judgments (voted out of Senate committee)

Hearing:

HB 230 – Recovery of Attorney's Fees in Certain Civil Cases

The status of each bill, as well as the others that experienced some form of activity last week, have been updated below.

The Week Ahead

Currently, no monitored bills/resolutions are scheduled for public committee hearing this week.

BILLS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR

SB 534 - Oath of Persons Admitted to Practice Law in Texas

· Summary: SB 534, filed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D - Austin), amends section 82.037 of the Government Code and revises the oath taken by all attorneys admitted to practice law in Texas so as to require attorneys to conduct themselves “with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties.” Companion bills, HB 1644 and HB 1909, were filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo) and Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi) respectively.

· Bill Analysis for SB 534: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 534: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 534: On May 15, 2015, Governor Abbott signed SB 534 into law. (Senate/Committee History: On March 2, 2015, State Affairs conducted a hearing on SB 534. All who appeared before the committee, including representatives from the Texas Trial Lawyers Association (TTLA), the Texas Association of Defense Counsel (TADC), and the Texas Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates (TEX-ABOTA), testified in support of the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 534 begins around the 44:55 mark. The bill was unanimously voted out of committee.)(House/Committee History: On April 30^th, after having been considered by and voted out of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 28^th, the full House passed SB 534 without amendment, thereby making it eligible for the Governor to sign into law. The Senate had unanimously passed SB 534 on March 24^th).)

BILLS STILL PENDING

The subject-matter groupings below are for bills still pending. The status of each bill has been updated below and, where appropriate, links to hearing notices, witness lists, bill analyses, video/audio broadcasts, and other related documents have been posted for each bill. (Note: If you would rather jump-down to a category of pending bills instead of perusing the entire list from top-to-bottom, you can click on the subject heading.)

Attorney's Fees/Fee Agreements

Attorneys - Practice of Law

Constitutional Challenges to Texas Statutes

Damages

Defamation/Libel

Elections

Evictions

Family Law

Government Settlement Agreements

Health Care Liability

Insurance

Judiciary/Court Administration

Patent Infringement Claims

Probate Court Proceedings

Trial Court Procedure

Attorney’s Fees/Fee Agreements

HB 230 - Recovery of Attorney's Fees in Certain Civil Cases

· Summary: HB 230, filed by Rep. Jessica Farrar (D - Houston), would amend Chapter 38.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code (CPRC) to (1) add “other legal entity” to the list of those from whom attorney’s fees can be recovered; and (2) expressly provide that Chapter 38.001 does not authorize the recovery of attorney’s fees from the state, an agency or institution of the state, or a political subdivision. The bill would further provide that the amendment to Chapter 38.001 does not affect any other statute that permits the recovery of attorney’s fees from the governmental entities listed in the statute.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 230 was passed by the full House on April 9^th. On May 4^th, the bill was referred to State Affairs in the Senate and a public hearing was conducted on May 21, 2015. No one testified on, for, or against the bill. A representative for Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) registered as being against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing and the list of witnesses who registered a position on the bill: Senate Video Archive. Testimony about HB 230 begins around the 47:00 mark. The bill was left pending. (House Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 230 begins around the 1:47:30 mark. HB 230 was voted out of committee without amendments on March 17^th.)

Attorneys – Practice of Law

HB 2089 - Repeal of Occupation Tax (Companion: SB 765)

· Summary: HB 2089, filed by Rep. Drew Darby (R - San Angelo), would repeal the $200 annual attorney occupation tax, as well as other occupation taxes on licensed professionals. Multiple representatives have joined in on the bill. The companion bill, SB 765, was filed by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R - Tyler).

· Bill Analysis for HB 2089: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 2089: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2089: On April 23, 2015, the House unanimously passed HB 2089. The bill was received by the Senate and referred to Finance on April 28^th. (Committee History: Licensing & Administrative Procedures conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Several testified or registered in support of the bill. No one opposed it. Those who testified or registered in support of HB 2089 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony on HB 2089 begins around the 2:07:25 mark. The committee approved a committee substitute for HB 2089 and voted it out of committee on April 6, 2015.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 765: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 765: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 765: Senate Finance conducted a hearing on many “tax relief” bills, including SB 765, on March 3, 2015. Public testimony was taken on March 4^th. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcasts of the hearings: Senate Video Archive (March 3rd) and Senate Video Archive (Public Testimony - March 4th) . Testimony about SB 765 in the March 3^rd hearing begins around the 10:45 mark; public testimony in the March 4^th hearing begins around the 1:19:20 mark. Here is the list of witnesses who testified about the bill: Witness List. The bill remains pending.

Constitutional Challenges to Texas Statutes

SJR 8 - Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Legislature to Require a Court to Provide Notice to the Attorney General of a Constitutional Challenge to State Statutes

· Summary: SJR 8, filed by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D - Laredo), would amend the Texas Constitution to specifically authorize the Legislature to (1) require a court to notify the attorney general of a challenge to the constitutionality of a Texas statute, and (2) prescribe a reasonable period after notice is provided during which the court may not enter a judgment holding a statute unconstitutional. [Note: SJR 8 is the legislative response to the 2013 decision by the CCA holding that section 402.010(a)-(b) of the Government Code, which prevents a court from entering a final judgment until the AG is notified of a constitutional challenge to a statute, violated the separation-of-powers principles set forth in the Texas Constitution]. As you may recall, the Legislature passed legislation in 2011 (HB 2425) amending the Government Code to require courts to notify the AG when constitutional challenges to state statutes were raised. The law was amended in 2013 to place the burden of notifying the court of the pleading that should be served on the AG on the party raising the constitutional challenge (SB 392).

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On May 12, 2015, the full Senate unanimously voted to pass SJR 8. The bill was subsequently sent to the House and was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on May 14^th. Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence took public testimony on SJR 8 on May 19^th and unanimously (8-0) voted the bill out of committee on May 21^st and is eligible for full Senate deliberation. Only three individuals testified on SJR 8—all appeared as resource witnesses. Two individuals registered without testifying—one in support of the bill (a representative of Guardianship Reform Advocates for the Disabled & Elderly) and one opposed (a representative from the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office). For those who are interested, here is a link to the House Broadcast Archive and the Witness List. Testimony about SJR 8 begins around the 2:54:30 mark.)( (Senate Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on May 7, 2015 and unanimously voted the resolution out of committee on May 8^th. Here is the witness list and a link to the archive broadcast of the hearing: Senate Video Archive Witness List. Testimony about SJR 8 around the 1:29:40 mark.)

Damages

SB 735 - Availability and Use of Certain Evidence in Connection with an Award of Exemplary Damages (Companion: HB 969)

· Summary: The original version of SB 735, filed by Sen. Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay), sought to amend section 41.011 of the CPRC by eliminating “the net worth of defendant” as one of the elements considered in determining the amount of exemplary damages. However, the committee substitute approved by the State Affairs committee did two different things: (1) it defined “net worth” to mean “the total assets of a person minus the total liabilities of the person on a date determined appropriate by the trial court;” and (2) it added section 41.0115 to the CPRC and would provide as follows:

“Sec. 41.0115. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OF NET WORTH FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CLAIM. (a) On the motion of a party and after notice and a hearing, a trial court may authorize discovery of evidence of a defendant's net worth if the court finds in a written order that the claimant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages. Evidence submitted by a party to the court in support of or in opposition to a motion made under this subsection may be in the form of an affidavit or a response to discovery. (b) If a trial court authorizes discovery under Subsection (a), the court's order may only authorize use of the least burdensome method available to obtain the net worth evidence. (c) When reviewing an order authorizing or denying discovery of net worth evidence under this section, the reviewing court may consider only the evidence submitted by the parties to the trial court in support of or in opposition to the motion described by Subsection (a).”

On the House floor, SB 735 was further amended to include the following language: “If a party requests net worth discovery under this section, the court shall presume that the requesting party has had adequate time for the discovery of facts relating to exemplary damages for purposes of allowing the party from whom net worth discovery is sought to move for summary judgment on the requesting party’s claim for exemplary damages under Rule 166a(i), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.”

The companion to the original bill, HB 735, was filed by Rep. Ken King (R - Hemphill).

· Bill Analysis for SB 735: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 735: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 735: By a 20-11 vote, the full Senate passed SB 735 on April 28, 2015. In the House, the bill was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on May 4^th and then was unanimously voted out of committee, without amendment, by a 5-4 vote on May 13^th. By a 93-44 vote, the full House passed an amended version of SB 735 on May 22, 2015. (Senate Committee History: By a 7-2 vote, State Affairs voted SB 735 out of committee on April 22, 2015. The committee conducted a public hearing on April 13, 2015. Several witnesses testified or registered either for, on or against SB 735. Representatives from TLR, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and other business organizations were in favor of the bill. A TTLA representative testified against the bill. A TADC representative also testified, but did not take a position on SB 735. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List Senate Video Archive. Testimony about SB 735 begins around the 2:37:40 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 969: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 969: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 969: The Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified or registered either for, on or against HB 969. Representatives from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and other business organizations were in favor of the bill. A TTLA representative testified against the bill. A TADC representative also testified, but did not take a position on HB 969. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 969 begins around the 3:30:35 mark. On April 23^rd, by a 5-4 vote, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted a committee substitute for HB 969 out of committee.

Defamation/Libel

SB 627 - Relating to Certain Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for a Libel Action (Companion: HB 1766)

· Summary: SB 627, filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston), would amend Chapter 73 of the CPRC (Defamation Mitigation Act) to add the “publication of allegations made by a third party regarding matters of public concern, regardless of the truth or falsity of the allegations” to the list of publications that are privileged and not grounds for a libel action. It would also add the following sections: “[t]his section does not abrogate or lessen any other defense, remedy, immunity, or privilege available under other constitutional, statutory, case, or common law or rule provisions” and “[t]his section shall be construed liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent fully.” The companion bill, HB 1766, was filed by Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi).

· Bill Analysis for SB 627: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 627: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 627: On April 22, 2015, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 627. The full House unanimously passed SB 627 on May 15^th. The bill has been sent to Governor Abbott for consideration. (Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 2, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups testifying for and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Video Archive. Testimony about SB 627 begins around the 1:35:55 mark. On April 15, 2015, State Affairs approved a committee substitute for SB 627, which sought to further clarify that a journalist accurately reporting on third party allegations regarding matters of public concern could use the accuracy of such reporting as a defense to libel. After passage in the Senate, the bill was sent to the House and referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence, where it was unanimously voted out of committee without amendments on May 12^th.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 1766: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1766: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1766: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted a committee substitute for HB 1766 out of committee on April 23, 2015. The committee substitute made the bill identical to the version adopted by the Senate. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups that either testified or registered a position on HB 1766: Witness List. TTLA, TLR, and the Texas Association of Broadcasters were among those who either testified or registered as being for the bill. No one testified against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1766 begins around the 2:45 mark.)

Elections

HB 3880 - Filing Requirements for Candidates for Certain Judicial Offices

· Summary: HB 3880, filed by Rep. Craig Goldman (R - Fort Worth), would repeal sections 172.021(e) and (g) of the Elections Code, which would eliminate the petition requirement for certain judicial candidates. Specifically, under HB 2754, candidates for the following judicial offices would no longer have to include a petition with their application and fee to get on the general primary election ballot:

o Chief Justice or justice of the Supreme Court;

o Presiding Judge or judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals;

o Chief justice or justice of a court of appeals in an appellate district in which a county with a population of more than one million is wholly or partly situated;

o district or criminal district judge of a court in a judicial district wholly contained in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million;

o judge of a statutory county court in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million; and

o justice of the peace in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million.

A similar (though not identical) bill (HB 2754) was filed by Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R – Southlake). A public hearing was held in front of Elections at the same time as HB 3880. The committee voted HB 2754 out of committee on April 16, 2015 without amendment. It was passed by the full House (135-4) on May 8^th. Here is the status and analysis for the bill: Status of HB 2754 Bill Analysis.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16, 2015, Elections voted HB 3880 out of committee (by a 6-0 vote, with one absent) without amendments. It was passed by the full House (135-4) on May 8^th and has been sent to the Senate. (House Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Those who testified are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 3880 begins around the 3:14:00 mark.)

Evictions

HB 3364 - Appeals of Eviction Suit Judgments

· Summary: HB 3364, filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston), would amend section 24.007 of the Property Code to prohibit appeals of county court judgments in eviction suits on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only. HB 3364 would add back in to section 24.007(a) the same language that was removed from the statute in 2011. The bill would also repeal section 24.007(b), which was enacted in 2011 and authorizes appeals of final judgments of a county court, statutory county court, statutory probate court, or district court in an eviction suit.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On May 12, 2015, HB 3364 was unanimously passed by the full House. On May 14^th, the bill was referred to State Affairs in the Senate and a public hearing was conducted on May 22, 2015. No one testified on, for, or against the bill; however, a representative from the Texas Association of Realtors(TAR) registered as being in support of the bill. By a 6-0 vote (3 members absent), State Affairs subsequently voted the bill out of committee without amendments. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing and the list of witnesses who registered a position on the bill: Senate Video Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3364 begins around the 32:40 mark. (House Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015 and unanimously voted the bill out of committee, without amendment, on April 29^th. No witnesses testified on HB 3364; however, a few witnesses registered as being for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3364 begins around the 3:48:15 mark.)

Family Law

SB 531 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Proceeding involving Marriage, a Suit for Dissolution of a Marriage/Affecting Parent-Child Relationship (Companion: HB 562)

· Summary: SB 531, filed by Sen. Donna Campbell (R - New Braunfels), would prohibit a court or arbitrator in a family law matter from making a ruling or decision based on a foreign law if the application of that law would be “contrary to the public policy of [Texas].” Under the bill, the application of a law would be contrary to public policy if it would: (1) violate a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution; (2) violate a fundamental right guaranteed by the Texas constitution; (3) violate good morals or natural justice; or (4) be prejudicial to the general interests of the citizens of Texas. The companion bill to the original version of SB 531 (HB 562) was filed by Rep. Jeff Leach (R - Plano).

· Bill Analysis for SB 531: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 531: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status for SB 531: State Affairs voted SB 531 out of committee on May 18, 2015 and the full Senate subsequent passed the bill on May 22, 2015. In the House, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted SB 531 out of committee on May 23^rd. The bill has been sent to Calendars for consideration. (Senate Committee History: State Affairs conducted a hearing on the bill on May 4, 2015. Numerous individuals and groups either testified or registered a position on SB 531. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Video Archive Witness List. Testimony about SB 531 begins around the 2:14:10 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 562: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 562: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status for HB 562: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 562 (as amended) out of committee by a 7-2 vote. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Numerous individuals either testified for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 562 begins around the 1:59:20 mark.)

Government Settlement Agreements

HB 1630 - Limitations on Settlement Agreements with Governmental Units

· Summary: HB 1630, filed by Rep. Ramon Romero, Jr. (D - Fort Worth), would prohibit a state or local governmental unit from entering into a settlement of a claim or action against the governmental unit in which: (1) the amount of the settlement is equal to or greater than $30,000; and (2) a condition of the settlement requires the party seeking affirmative relief against the governmental unit to agree not to disclose any fact, allegation, evidence, or other matter to any other person, including a journalist or other member of the media. HB 1630 would also:

o Prohibit a governmental unit from disclosing the personal information of a party seeking affirmative relief unless the party agrees to the disclosure.

o Provide that a provision in a settlement agreement that is in violation of the non-disclosure prohibition is void and unenforceable.

o Provide that the bill does not affect information that is privileged or confidential under other law.

o Provide that evidence of furnishing (or offering or promising to furnish) or accepting (or offering or promising to accept) a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a disputed claim against a governmental unit is not admissible to prove liability for or the invalidity of the claim or its amount.

o Provide that evidence of conduct or statements made in settlement negotiations is likewise not admissible; that such prohibitions do not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented during settlement negotiations, or when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice or interest of a witness or a party, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

o Provide that the changes in the law made by HB 1630 would apply to the settlement of a claim or action with respect to the cause of action upon which the claim or action is based accrues on or after the effective date of the bill (i.e., September 1, 2015).

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: By a vote of 117-26, the full House passed HB 1630 on May 13, 2015 and forwarded the bill to the Senate. On May 22^nd, State Affairs took public testimony on the bill. A representative from the Texas Conference of Urban Counties was the only individual to testify and take a position on the bill (TCUC was opposed). Others registering a position on the bill included the Texas Press Association, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, and a member of the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney’s Office (all in favor of the bill) and a representative from the Tarrant County Commissioners Court (against the bill). For those interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing and the list of witnesses who registered a position on the bill: Senate Video Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1630 begins around the 54:10 mark. State Affairs subsequently voted the bill out of committee, without amendment, by an 8-1 vote. (House Committee History: The Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified/registered either for, on or against HB 1630. A representative from the Texas Conference of Urban Counties was the only individual to testify, and indicated that TCUC was opposed to the bill. Others registering a position on the bill were the Texas Press Association and Texas Association of Broadcasters (in favor of the bill) and representatives from the Texas Municipal League, Harris County, Texas Association of Counties, and the Tarrant and Bexar County Commissioners Courts). Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1630 begins around the 2:16:10 mark. On April 16, 2015, the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 1630 out of committee without amendments.)

Health Care Liability

HB 1403 - Defining Health Care Liability Claim for Purposes of Certain Claims

· Summary: HB 1403, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would amend the definition of “health care liability claim” in Chapter 74 of the CPRC to not include a personal injury claim filed against an employer by an employee not covered by worker’s compensation insurance or the employee’s surviving spouse or heir. [Note: The committee substitute for HB 1403 that was adopted by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee would also require the expert report required under 74.351(a) to “address at least one theory of direct liability asserted against each physician or health care provider against whom a theory of direct liability is asserted.” However, the report requirement was subsequently removed from the bill via a floor amendment.]

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On May 13, 2015, the full House passed HB 1403 by a 141-1 vote. On May 14^th, the bill was referred to State Affairs in the Senate. A public hearing was conducted on May 22, 2015. Only one witness testified at the hearing-- a representative from TLR testified in support of the bill. Representatives of TTLA, Texas Association of Business, and Texas Alliance for Patient Access registered (but did not testify) in support of the bill. On May 22^nd, by a 7-0 vote (2 members absent), the bill was voted out of committee without amendment. The full Senate subsequently passed the bill on May 24^th. For those who are interested in watching the Senate State Affairs committee hearing, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing and the list of witnesses who registered a position on the bill: Senate Video Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1403 begins around the 56:30 mark. (House Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted a committee substitute for HB 1403 out of committee on April 23, 2015. The committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either for or against the bill. Representatives from TLR and the Texas Nurses Association testified in support of HB 1403. TTLA testified against the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1403 begins around the 11:10:45 mark.)

Insurance Claims

SB 1628 - Insurance Claims and Certain Prohibited Acts and Practices Relating to the Business of Insurance (Companion: HB 3646)

· Summary: SB 1628, was filed by Sen. Larry Taylor (R - Friendswood), would amend various sections of the Insurance Code to do, among other things, the following:

o The definition of “person” would no longer include an adjuster or any third-party individual or entity “engaged by an insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.”

o An insurer would be “solely responsible” for any “unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance” committed by an individual employed by the insurer as an adjuster or a third-party individual or entity engaged by the insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.

o An insured seeking damages in an action against an insurer would be required to provide written notice to the insurer at least 61 days prior to filing suit that includes a sworn statement containing the following information: (1) the specific damage items and the amount alleged to be owed by the insurer; (2) the amount of attorney’s fees the insured reasonably incurred in asserting the claim against the insurer; and (3) the amount that the insured will accept in full and final satisfaction of the claim. If the sworn statement included damage amounts sought by the insured not previously submitted to the insurer, the notice must contain: (1) a sworn statement signed by the insured stating the specific damage items, the amount alleged to be owed by the insured, and the reason the damage items were not previously submitted to the insurer; (2) copies of reports, estimates, photographs, and other items reasonably supporting the insured ’s additional damage items; (3) a statement that the insured will cooperate in allowing the insurer to inspect the insured property for purposes of investigating the additional damage items; (4) the amount of attorney’s fees the insured reasonably incurred in asserting the claim against the insurer; and (5) a stated amount that the insured will accept in full and final satisfaction of the claim.

o Establish a requirement in which a failure to provide requisite notice prior to filing suit would, in certain circumstances, be subject to dismissal or abatement.

o Establish a 2-year statute of limitations for providing notice to an insurer of certain claims for damages to or loss of real property or tangible personal property.

The companion bill, HB 3646, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo),

· Bill Analysis for SB 1628: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1628: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1628: On April 30^th, the full Senate passed SB 1628 by a 21-10 vote. It was referred to the Insurance (House) on May 4^th, which subsequently adopted a committee substitute that was voted out of committee on May 15^th. (Senate Committee History: Business & Commerce voted a committee substitute for SB 1628 out of committee on April 20, 2015. The committee conducted its first public hearing on SB 1628 on March 31, 2015. Many witnesses either testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. Most of those who testified were against the bill; most who registered a position without testifying supported the bill. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1628 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Video Archive. Testimony about SB 1628 begins around the 1:50:40 mark.

A public hearing on the committee substitute for SB 1628 was conducted on April 14, 2015. Much like the first hearing, many witnesses either testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1628 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Video Archive. Testimony about SB 1628 begins around the 6:20 mark.)

· Fiscal Note for HB 3646: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 3646: Insurance conducted a public hearing on April 22, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups registered to testify for HB 3646, but the witness list has yet to be posted. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 3646 begins around the 3:27:55 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

Judiciary/Court Administration

HB 1 / SB 2 - Appropriations Bills (Appellate Court Budget Only)

· Summary/Status: On April 1, 2015, the House voted (141-5) to pass its budget, which appropriated $793 million for the judiciary during the next biennium and included the above-referenced appropriations as recommended by the Appropriations Committee: CSHB 1 (the section of CSHB 1 related to the judiciary is located at pp. 485-528). The $793 million for the judiciary is $32 million more than proposed in the original budget and an almost 4% increase over the last biennium. The House-approved budget includes funding for the following:

· Basic Civil Legal Services – The Supreme Court would receive $61.4 million over the next biennium for basic civil legal services, of which $10 million would be dedicated for legal aid for sexual assault victims and $1.75 million for veterans.

· EFileTexas.gov – The Office of Court Administration (OCA) would receive $28.8 million for the biennium for EFileTexas.gov, which would be funded by $14.4 million collected each year from the $20 e-filing fee that litigants pay when they file civil lawsuits. OCA would also receive in excess of $900,000 each fiscal year to establish four new child protection courts.

· “Similar Funding for Same Size Courts” Block Grant – The intermediate appellate courts would receive the additional $6.4 million dollars needed to fund the remaining half of the “similar funding for same size courts” block grant.

On April 9^th, the Senate Finance Committee considered the House’s budget and approved (unanimously) a committee substitute that mirrored the Senate’s version of the budget. The Senate’s version of the budget was approved by the full Senate on April 14^th. A conference committee was appointed to reconcile the differences between the two budgets. The conference committee has agreed upon a compromise version of the bill.

The preliminary House and Senate budgets for 2016 and 2017 included slight funding cuts for the judiciary. As originally filed, the House would appropriate $761.5 million to the judiciary for the biennium, a 0.3 percent decrease compared with the last budget. The Senate would give the judiciary $753.1 million, a 1.4 percent decrease.

The Supreme Court asked for additional funds in order to do, among other things, the following: (1) provide raises for staff attorneys, non-legal staff and clerks, as well as provide an increase in the travel budget for Supreme Court committees; and (2) provide legal services for veterans. The intermediate appellate courts jointly requested an additional $6.4 million dollars to fulfill the remaining half of their request for funds under the “similar funding for same size courts” model. [Note: Last session, the 83^rd Legislature passed a budget that included additional funding for intermediate appellate courts that represented half of the funding originally requested by the courts under the “similar funding for same size courts” model. The additional funds were used, in part, to provide targeted salary increases for legal and non-legal staff at the courts to restore some salaries and staff positions, as well as operating costs that were cut in previous fiscal years.] Further, in addition to the similar-funding-for-same-size-courts funds, the Austin and Fort Worth courts requested funds to hire more staff attorneys to help manage their respective caseloads.

Following the recommendations of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Articles I, IV & V, the full Appropriations Committee adopted the Subcommittee's Recommendations that included (1) additional funds for the Supreme Court to provide raises for legal staff and to provide basic civil legal services to veterans and sexual assault victims and (2) the intermediate appellate courts’ request for the additional $6.4 million dollars needed to fund the remaining half of the “similar funding for same size courts” block grant. A Senate Finance subcommittee has also accepted the Supreme Court’s and intermediate appellate courts’ request for these additional funds.

SB 455 - Creation of a Special Three-Judge District Court (Companion: HB 1091)

· Summary: SB 455, filed by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R - Conroe), would amend the Government Code to create a procedural mechanism that would allow the Attorney General to petition the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the formation of a special three-judge panel to hear certain types of cases in which the State of Texas or an officer or agency of the State is a defendant. Proceedings in front of a three-judge panel would be mandatory in cases involving a claim that either (1) challenges the finances or operations of the public school system; or (2) involves the apportionment of districts for the Texas House, Texas Senate, U.S. Congress, State Board of Education, or the apportionment of state judicial districts. Three-judge panel proceedings would be discretionary in other cases in which the Attorney General certifies that the outcome of the case either (1) significantly impacts the finances of the State; (2) significantly alters the operations of important statewide policies or programs; or (3) is otherwise of exceptional statewide importance such that the case should not be decided by a single district judge. Under SB 455, the Chief Justice’s decision to either deny the AG’s petition or order that a discretionary proceeding be heard by a special three-judge district court would be considered final and not appealable; however, appeals “from an appealable interlocutory order of final judgment” of the three-judge court would be directly to the Supreme Court.

SB 455 provides that the three-judge district court would consist of the district judge to whom the case was assigned at the time the petition to the Chief Justice was submitted, a district judge chosen by the Chief Justice who has been elected by the voters of a county other than the county in which the case was filed, and a justice of a court of appeals chosen by the Chief Justice who has been elected by the voters of a judicial district other than the district in which the case was filed or in which the district judge chosen under the section sits. The three-judge court would be required to sit in the county in which the case was filed and would be subject to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; provided, however, that the Supreme Court may promulgate rules for the operation of the three-judge courts.

The companion bill, HB 1091, was filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston).

· Fiscal Note for SB 455: Legislative Budget Board

· Analysis for SB 455: Senator Research Center

· Status of SB 455: On May 4^th, the full Senate, by a 21-10 vote, passed SB 455 without amendment. It was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence (House) on May 5^th, which subsequently voted SB 455 out of committee without amendment on May 12^th. The full House passed the bill (without amendment) on May 19^th. (Senate Committee History: On April 28^th, State Affairs unanimously voted SB 455 out of committee and the full Senate, by a 21-10 vote, passed the bill without amendment. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 20, 2015. Several witnesses either testified or registered a position on the bill. The only witness who testified was a TTLA representative, who spoke in favor of the bill. TLR registered as being for the bill, while a representative of the NAACP and a Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund representative registered as being against SB 455. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 455 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Video Archive. Testimony about SB 455 begins around the 22:55 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 1091: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1091: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1091: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted a committee substitute for HB 1091 out of committee (5-4 vote). (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Several witnesses testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. Most of those who testified or registered a position about the bill opposed it, including TTLA, the Texas Family Law Foundation, and TEX-ABOTA. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on HB 1091 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1091 begins around the 5:41:50 mark.)

SB 1116 - Notices or Documents Sent by Mail or Email by a Court, Court Clerk, or Judge (Companion: HB 2822)

· Summary: SB 1116, filed by Sen. Royce West (D - Dallas), would amend the Government Code to authorize a “court, justice, judge, magistrate, or clerk” to send any notice or document using mail or electronic mail and would apply to all civil and criminal statutes requiring delivery of a notice or document. However, authorized methods of delivery of electronic mail would not include facsimiles, instant messaging, messages on a social network website (including Facebook and Twitter), telegraphs, telephone messages, text messages, videoconferencing, voice messages, or webcams. The companion bill, HB 2822, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo).

· Bill Analysis for SB 1116: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1116: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1116: On April 30^th, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 1116. On May 4^th, the bill was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence in the House, who promptly voted it out of committee (unanimously and without amendment) on May 7^th. The full House unanimously passed SB 1116 on May 15^th. (Senate Committee History: State Affairs unanimously voted a committee substitute for SB 1116 out of committee on April 22, 2015. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 16, 2015. Only three witnesses testified on SB 1116 (one in support of the bill; two simply “on” the bill), while several registered support for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List Senate Video Archive. Testimony about SB 1116 begins around the 55:30 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 2822: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 2822: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2822: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 2822 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Only one witness testified on HB 2822, while several registered support for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2822 begins around the 11:26:10 mark.)

HB 1122 - Number of Jurors Required in Certain Civil Cases Pending in Statutory County Court (Companion: SB 824)

· Summary: HB 1122, filed by Rep. Travis Clardy (R - Nacogdoches), would amend the Government Code to require that civil cases pending in a statutory county court in which the amount in controversy is $200,000 or more be tried before a jury of twelve (12) members. The bill would also require that the drawing of jury panels, the selection of jurors, and the related practice and procedure conform to that prescribed by law for district courts in the county where the statutory county court is located. The companion bill (SB 824) was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1122: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1122: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1122: On March 17^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously approved a committee substitute that would authorize a commissioners court to reduce the jurisdiction of the county court to $200,000 in those counties in which the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200,000. The committee substitute for HB 1122 (CSHB 1122) was sent to the Local & Consent Calendar. (Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1122 begins around the 2:00 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 824: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 824: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 824: On April 15^th, the full Senate passed SB 824. The bill was sent to the House, referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 27^th, and was considered in a formal meeting of the committee on May 7^th. Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted SB 824 out of committee, without amendment, by an 8-1 vote on May 13^th. (Senate Committee History: On March 31, 2015, a committee substitute was voted unanimously out of State Affairs and recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. Like the House version, the committee substitute that would authorize a commissioners court to reduce the jurisdiction of the county court to $200,000 in those counties in which the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200,000, thus negating the need to use a twelve-person jury. (Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 23, 2015. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 824 begins around the 36:44 mark.)

Patent Infringement Claims

SB 1457 - Bad Faith Patent Infringement Claims

· Summary: SB 1457, filed by Sen. Robert Nichols (R - Jacksonville), would amend the Business and Commerce Code by adding an additional subchapter to the DTPA entitled "Bad Faith Claims of Patent Infringement." Like SB 1187/HB 3176, the bill would prohibit bad faith claims of patent infringement. However, unlike SB 1187/HB 3176, SB 1457 would define a bad faith claim as one that includes an allegation of infringement and (a) falsely states that the sender has filed a lawsuit in connection with the claim; (b) the claim is objectively baseless; and (c) the communication is likely to materially mislead the recipient because it does not include the identity of the person asserting the claim, the patent that is alleged to have been infringed, and at least one product, service or activity that is alleged to infringe the patent. Under SB 1457, "objectively baseless" would mean that (a) the sender does not have a current right to license the patent or to enforce the patent; (b) the patent has been held invalid or unenforceable in a final judgment or administrative decision; or (c) the infringing activity occurred after the patent expired.

SB 1457 would authorize the Attorney General to bring an action if it believes that the prohibition against bad faith claims of patent infringement has been violated. The Attorney General could also seek injunctive relief and a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000 for each violation as well as reimbursement to the State of Texas of the “reasonable value of investigating and prosecuting a violation” and restitution to the victim for “legal and professional expenses related to the violation.”

The bill specifically states that it would not prohibit a person with rights to license and enforce a patent from notifying others of their ownership, offering it for license, notifying any person of infringement under federal law, or seeking compensation for past or present infringement or for a license to the patent. Finally, SB 1457 also provides that the knowing institution of a suit or claim for patent infringement that constitutes a bad faith claim of patent infringement under the DTPA would be a Class A misdemeanor.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 21, 2015, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 1457. On May 22^nd, the full House passed the bill (without amendment) by a 138-2 vote. Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence had considered the bill in public hearing on May 19^th and unanimously (8-0) voted the bill out of committee on May 20^th. At the public hearing, only two witnesses testified on SB 1457—a TTLA representative who testified in support of the bill and a representative from the Attorney General’s Office who provided resource testimony. Numerous individuals registered their support for the bill without providing testimony. No one opposed it. For those who are interested, here is a link to the House Broadcast Archive and the Witness List. Testimony about SB 1457 begins around the 58:15 mark. (Senate Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 9, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the Senate Broadcast Archive. Testimony about SB 1457 begins around the 39:10:00 mark. On April 15, 2015, the committee unanimously voted the committee substitute out of committee. The substitute deleted the criminal penalties for barratry.)

Probate Court Proceedings

SB 512 - Promulgation of Forms for Use in Probate Matters

· Summary: SB 512, filed by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D - Laredo), would require the Supreme Court to promulgate appropriate forms and instructions for the use of certain forms by individuals representing themselves in certain probate matters or making certain wills, including forms for use in: (1)Aa small estate affidavit proceeding under the Estates Code; (2) the probate of a will as a muniment of title under the Estates Code; and (3) the making of a will for married and unmarried individuals. [A similar, though not identical, bill (HB 2196) has been filed in the House by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (R - Houston). The bill was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.]

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 512: On March 24, 2015, the full Senate passed SB 512 by a 30-1 vote. On May 22^nd, the full House passed the bill (without amendment) by a 138-2 vote. (House Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence took public testimony on SB 512 on May 19^th and unanimously (8-0) voted the bill out of committee on May 20^th. Only three individuals testified on SB 512—all were in favor of the bill. Numerous individuals registered their support for the bill without providing testimony. No one opposed it. For those who are interested, here is a link to the House Broadcast Archive and the Witness List. Testimony about SB 512 begins around the 2:39 mark.)(Senate Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 9, 2015. Those who testified about the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in listening to the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast (audio only) of the hearing: Senate Broadcast Archive. Testimony about SB 512 begins around the 2:16 mark. A committee substitute was offered to make the bill identical to HB 2196. The bill was unanimously voted out of committee on March 16, 2015.)

Trial Court Procedure

HB 1692 - Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens (Companion: SB 1942)

· Summary: HB 1692, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would amend section 71.051(e) of the CPRC and provide that, in determining whether a case should be dismissed under the forum non conveniens provisions, the “plaintiff’s choice of a forum…shall be given substantial deference, provided that the plaintiff is a legal resident of the state and the underlying litigation has a significant connection to this state.” HB 1692 would also eliminate the “legal resident” definition and add to the definition of “plaintiff” the following: “an intervenor, beneficiary, next friend, or other derivative party to the plaintiff ’s claim” and “a decedent ’s estate, if the decedent was not a legal resident of this state at the time of death.” The companion bill (SB 1942) was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1692: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1692: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1692: On May 11, 2015, the full House passed HB 1692 by a 132-5 vote. On May 22^nd, the full Senate passed 1692 (without amendment) by a 27-4 vote. (Senate Committee History: The bill was forwarded to the Senate and referred to State Affairs on May 12^th. The committee took public testimony on May 18^th. There were numerous witnesses that either testified or registered a position on, for, or against the bill. Organizations such as the Texas NAACP, the ACLU, and Texas Justice Center opposed the bill, while business, trade organizations, and interest groups such Shell Oil, Conoco Phillips, Ford Motor Company, Texas Civil Justice League, and Texans for Lawsuit Reform supported the bill. For those interested in watching the hearing and reviewing the complete list of witnesses, here is the link to the video and the : Senate Video Archive and Witness List. Testimony about HB 1692 begins around the 9:40 mark.)(House Committee History: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 1692 out of committee by a 5-4 vote. The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Those who testified either for, on, or against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1692 begins around the 4:14:00 mark.)

· Status of SB 1942: Referred to State Affairs on March 25, 2015.

BILLS LIKELY TO FAIL

Appellate Procedure

HB 1494 - Filing of the Reporter's Record

· Summary: HB 1494, filed by Rep. Bryan Hughes (R - Mineola), would amend section 52.047 of the Government Code to state that a court reporter would not be required to file an official transcript of a trial before the 60^th day after the date a notice of appeal is filed. However, this amendment would not apply to accelerated or interlocutory appeals.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 1494 out of committee without amendment. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1494 begins around the 1:41:00 mark.)

Attorney’s Fees/Fee Agreements

HB 247 - Limitations on Certain Actions Arising Out of Attorney's Fee Agreements

· Summary: HB 247, filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would place limitations on claims that could be brought under contingent fee agreements that comply with the statute (i.e., agreements that expressly state the method by which a fee is determined; that litigation and other expenses will be deducted from the recovery; and whether litigation expenses and other expenses are deducted before or after the contingent fee is calculated). The limitations in HB 247 would also apply to contingency fee agreements in which an attorney represents two or more clients and enters into an aggregate settlement agreement of the clients’ claims if the agreement expressly discloses: 1) the existence and nature of all claims or pleas involved; 2) the nature and extent of the participation of each client in the settlement; and 3) the amount of remittance to each client and the method by which the remittance will be determined.

HB 247 would permit a party to bring a claim arising out of an agreement subject to the statute only on the grounds that the agreement was obtained by corruption, coercion, force, fraud, or other undue means, or that the agreement was forged. Further, in a claim arising out of the settlement of matters involving multiple clients that is brought on grounds other than those permitted by HB 247, the settlement will be “irrebuttably presumed” to be: 1) fully disclosed, read, understood, and voluntarily entered into by all parties to the agreement; 2) fair, accepted, reasonable, and made in the best interests of the parties by the parties or through their attorneys; and 3) final and not subject to subsequent litigation.

On the motion of a party, a court will be required to dismiss with prejudice any action involving claims arising out of an agreement that is subject to HB 247 if the action is brought on grounds other than those permitted by HB 247.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 5, 2015.

HB 1531 - Referrals for Legal Services by Legislators and Executive Officers

· Summary: HB 1531, filed by Rep. Charlie Geren (R - Fort Worth), would add section 572.063 to the Government Code and prohibit a member of the legislature or an executive officer elected in a statewide election who is a member of the State Bar of Texas or who is licensed to practice law in another state or a United States territory from making or receiving any referral for legal services for monetary compensation or any other benefit unless the referral complied with State Bar rules and is evidenced by a written contract between the parties who are subject to the referral. A violation of this law would be a Class A misdemeanor. The original version of the bill prohibited referrals without exception.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 2^nd, General Investigating & Ethics voted the committee substitute out of committee and sent the bill to Calendars on April 7^th. (Committee History: General Investigating & Ethics conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2015. No one testified for, against, or on the bill. Only one person registered to take a position on the bill and it was a registration of support. Here is the Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1531 begins around the 2:08:00 mark.)

Attorneys – Practice of Law

SB 1430 – Eligibility of Attorneys Licensed Outside of State to Take Bar Exam (Companion: HB 2045)

· Summary: SB 1430, filed by Sen. Bob Hall (R - Rockwall), would amend the Government Code by adding section 82.025 and would permit an attorney licensed to practice law in another state to take the Texas bar examination regardless of whether the attorney has completed the study of law in an approved law school if the attorney: (1) is a United States citizen; and (2) satisfies all other requirements to be licensed in Texas. The companion bill, HB 2045, was filed by Rep. James White (R - Woodville).

· Status of SB 1430: Referred to State Affairs on March 18, 2015.

· Fiscal Note for HB 2045: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2045: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 2045 begins around the 49:20 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 2624 - Effects of Default on a Student Loan Administered by Higher Education Coordinating Board on License Renewals

· Summary: HB 2624, filed by Rep. Chris Turner (D - Arlington/Grand Prairie), would amend the Education Code to prevent licensed professionals (including licensed attorneys) who are in default on student loans administered by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) from having their professional licenses renewed. Under the bill, THCEB would receive a list of licensees from the applicable licensing board/agency to determine if any of the licensees are in default on their loans and then send a default list back to the licensing board/agency. A person who was in default could enter a repayment plan with the THECB, at which time the licensing board/agency could still renew the license as long as the licensee was current on repayments. The licensing agency would have to provide a hearing before non-renewing a license. Under HB 2624, the licensing board/agency would create its own rules to carry out the bill's provisions. The bill specifically requires the Supreme Court to create the rules for non-renewing law licenses.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 1^st, HB 2624 was voted out of committee without amendments and was recommended for the Local & Consent calendar. (Committee History: Higher Education conducted a public hearing on March 25, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2624 begins around the 26:50 mark.)

Certificate of Merit

HB 1353 - Certificates of Merit for Certain Professionals (Companion: SB 1579)

· Summary: HB 1353, filed by Rep. Charlie Geren (R - Fort Worth), would add a definition of “claimant” to CPRC section 150.001, which is the statute that requires a person to file an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor with a claim for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional. For purposes of the statute, “claimant” would mean a party, including a plaintiff, counter-claimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff, seeking recovery of damages. The current statute uses only the undefined term “plaintiff.” The companion bill, SB 1579, was filed by Sen. Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay).

· Status of HB 1353: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 17, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1353 begins around the 10:00 mark.

· Status of SB 1579: Referred to State Affairs on March 23, 2015.

Collaborative Law

HB 2512 - Adoption of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act

· Summary: HB 2512, filed by Rep. Bill Zedler (R - Arlington), would add Chapter 160 to the CPRC and adopt the Uniform Collaborative Law Act in order to clarify rules about the mechanics of collaborative law. Collaborative law is a voluntary process that is intended to provide for a form of limited scope representation in which an attorney is retained solely for the purpose of reaching a settlement, and expressly not for the purpose of litigation.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either for, on, or against the bill. Two individuals/attorneys testified in favor of HB 2512. Representatives from TTLA, TADC, and TEX-ABOTA all testified against it. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2512 begins around the 2:50:00 mark. The bill remains pending.

Construction Defect Claims

HB 1784 - Construction Defect Claims

· Summary: HB 1784, filed by Rep. Paul Workman (R - Austin), would amend section 41.015 of the CPRC to establish a 10-year statute of repose for construction defect claims against the person who actually designed, administered, constructed, or repaired an improvement to real property. The statute of repose would apply only to the actual costs incurred in curing a construction defect and the amount of damages for cost to cure would be reduced by 10% on each anniversary date of substantial completion of the construction of repair that occurs before the date the action is filed. An award of exemplary damages, multiplied damages, or other damages computed on the basis of the amount of damages for the cost to cure the defect would have to reflect any reduction made under section 41.015.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Construction industry representatives testified in support of HB 1784, while TTLA and representatives of the cities of Fort Worth and Austin opposed the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1784 begins around the 1:53:20 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but has yet to be posted. The bill was left pending.

Damages

HB 419 - Federal Income Tax Liability for Damages Awarded in Civil Actions

· Summary: HB 419, filed by Rep. Gene Wu (D – Houston), would amend Chapter 41 of the CPRC to require a defendant to compensate a claimant for federal income tax liability arising out of a damages award.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either against or on the bill, most of which (all insurance and/or contractor representatives) were against it. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 419 begins around the 1:39:00 mark. A committee substitute was proposed that reportedly includes a 2-year limitation period for defendants to be liable for compensation under this bill, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

HB 820 - Liability for Damages Arising from Certain Motor Vehicle Accidents

· Summary: HB 820, filed by Rep. Ed Thompson (R - Pearland), would amend the CPRC by adding Chapter 72A, which would prevent an uninsured driver who was in a car accident from recovering exemplary and noneconomic damages in a lawsuit for bodily injury, death or property damage. The same prohibition would apply to derivative claims arising out of the accident, such as claims for wrongful death or loss of consortium or companionship. However, the prohibition would not apply to claims brought by the uninsured driver in a representative capacity (e.g., as next friend if the uninsured driver’s minor child was injured) or if the at-fault driver was driving drunk, acted willfully or was grossly negligent, had fled the scene, or was committing a felony when the accident happened.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 3, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups registered to testify both for and against HB 820: Witness List. TTLA and Texas Watch provided oral testimony in opposition to the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 820 begins around the 3:30 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but the bill remains pending.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act

HB 2898 - Relating to Certain DTPA Procedures, Civil Penalties, and Remedies

· Summary: HB 2898, filed by Rep. Sarah Davis (R - Houston), would amend sections 17.45(9) and (13) of the Business & Commerce Code in order to modify the definitions of “intentionally” and “knowingly” and certain portions of the provisions related to the consumer protection division of the AG’s office (i.e., sections 17.47, 17.60, and 17.61). More specifically, HB 2898 would (a) substitute the phrase “misleading nature” for the word “unfairness” in the “knowingly” definition in section 17.45(9); and (b) change the definition of “intentionally” to read as follows:

(13) "Intentionally" means actual awareness, at the time of the act or practice complained of, of the falsity, deception, or misleading nature [unfairness] of the act or practice giving rise to the consumer ’s claim [,] or the condition, defect, or failure constituting a breach of warranty giving rise to the consumer’s claim, coupled with the specific intent that the consumer act in detrimental reliance on the act, practice, condition, defect, or failure [falsity or deception or in detrimental ignorance of the unfairness]. Intention may be inferred from objective manifestations that indicate that the person acted intentionally or from facts showing that a defendant acted with flagrant disregard of prudent and fair business practices to the extent that the defendant should be treated as having acted intentionally.

The remaining changes specifically relate to the enforcement provisions applicable to the AG’s office.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 17, 2015.

Decisions Based on Foreign Laws (Non-Family Law Proceedings)

HB 670 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Texas (Related Constitutional Amendment: HJR 32)

· Summary: HB 670 and HJR 32, filed by Rep. Dan Flynn (R - Canton), are similar to bills and related resolutions filed in 2011 and 2013 that failed to pass. HB 670 and HJR 32 would prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing “a ruling or decision” on “a foreign law,” or otherwise enforcing contract provisions that either require the application of a foreign law to a dispute or require parties to litigate their dispute in a forum outside of the United States if such provisions would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Texas Constitution.

· Bill Analysis for HB 670: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 670/HJR 32: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 670: On May 7, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 670 out of committee, without amendment, by a 5-3 vote (1 absent). The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Several individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 670 begins around the 1:31:40 mark.

· Status of HJR 32: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Numerous individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 32 begins around the 1:02:35 mark. On April 16, 2015, the committee voted on the bill but it failed to pass out of committee.

HB 828 - Application of Foreign or International Laws or Doctrines

· Summary: HB 828, filed by Rep. Bill Zedler (R - Arlington), would prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing “a ruling or decision” on either “a foreign or international law or doctrine” or “a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.” HB 828 would also require a court to “uphold and apply the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, federal laws, and the laws of this state, including the doctrine that is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and known as the church autonomy doctrine.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on February 23, 2015.

Defamation/Libel Actions

HB 4116 - Defense to Libel Actions

· Summary: HB 4116, filed by Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi), would amend section 73.005 of the CPRC by adding subsections (b) and (c), which would result in section 73.005 reading as follows:

Sec. 73.005. TRUTH A DEFENSE. (a) The truth of the statement in a publication on which a libel action is based is a defense to the action. (b) Subject to subsection (c), it is a defense to a libel action that the publication accurately reported the allegations of a third party regarding a matter of public concern. (c) Subsection (b) does not apply if: (i) the publication was made with actual malice; and (ii) the fact that the allegation was made is not itself a matter of public concern.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Elections

HB 25 - Elimination of Straight Ticket Voting for Judicial Offices (Companion: SB 1702)

· Summary: HB 25, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would eliminate straight ticket voting for judicial offices. HB 25 is virtually identical to SB 103 filed last session, which was voted out of committee but never was put to a vote before the full Senate. The companion bill, SB 1702, was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Fiscal Note for HB 25 / SB 1702: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 25: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Very few individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. Those who did testify (or registered a position on the bill) are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 25 begins around the 5:40 mark. HB 25 remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for SB 1702: Senate Research Center

· Status of SB 1702: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Most witnesses who testified about the bill opposed it. Those who did testify (or registered a position without testifying) are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Video Archive. Testimony about SB 1702 begins around the 1:42:00 mark. SB 1702 remains pending.

HB 1444 - Elimination of Straight-Party Voting in Certain Counties

· Summary: HB 1444, filed by Rep. Jason Villalba (R - Dallas), would amend section 52.071 of the Election Code to eliminate straight ticket voting for judicial offices and local executive offices in counties with a population over 1,000,000.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 5, 2015.

Family Law

HB 899 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Certain Family Law Proceedings

· Summary: Like HB 670, HB 899, filed by Rep. Pat Fallon (R - Little Elm), is similar to failed bills filed in prior sessions that would prohibit a court or arbitrator in suits involving the dissolution of a marriage from making a ruling or decision based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or a Texas statute.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 899 was scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, the bill was pulled so no action was taken.

SB 1090 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in a Marriage/Divorce Proceeding or a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (Companion Bill: HB 3943)

· Summary: SB 1090, filed by Sen. Bob Hall (R - Rockwall), is similar to HB 562 (discussed above). The primary difference between SB 1090 and HB 562 is that SB 1090 would amend the Family Code to strictly prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing a decision on a foreign law and from enforcing a contract provision involving a marriage or parent-child relationship that is based on a foreign law, regardless of whether the provision is substantive or procedural (i.e., forum selection or governing law clauses). SB 1090 does not limit the prohibition to only those instances in which the application of the foreign law violates a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or a Texas statute. The companion bill, HB 3943, was filed by Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R - Irving).

· Status of SB 1090: Referred to State Affairs on March 16, 2015.

HB 1195 - Disclosure by an Attorney Before Accepting Representation in a Marriage Dissolution Proceeding

· Summary: HB 1195, filed by Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R - Houston), would require an attorney to disclose certain information to a prospective client before agreeing to represent that client in a divorce proceeding. More specifically, HB 1195 would amend the Family Code to require: (1) the attorney to provide a prospective client with a disclosure form promulgated by the State Bar of Texas (SBOT); and (2) the client to acknowledge in writing that the client has received and understands the disclosure. The disclosure must include information about arbitration, mediation, collaborative law, and alternatives to retaining an attorney for the dissolution of a marriage, as well as any other information that the SBOT may require. HB 1195 is essentially the same bill that Rep. Bohac filed in 2013 (HB 3470), which died in committee.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: The committee on Juvenile Justice & Family Issues voted HB 1195 out of committee (without amendments) on April 8^th and sent it to Calendars on April 14^th. (Committee History: The committee had conducted a public hearing on March 25, 2015. A representative of the Texas Family Law Foundation testified in opposition to HB 1195. No other witnesses testified, but several individuals registered their position on the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1195 begins around the 22:35:00 mark.)

Governmental Immunity

HB 2375 - Liability of a Governmental Unit for Personal Injury and Death Caused by the Governmental Unit’s Negligence

· Summary: HB 2375, filed by Rep. Harold Dutton, Jr. (D - Houston), would amend section 101.021(2) of the CPRC and waive immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) for acts of employees that cause personal injury or death due to “the negligence of the governmental unit” if the governmental unit would otherwise be liable if it were a private person. Under HB 2375, negligence arising from “a condition or use of tangible personal or real property” would be eliminated from the TTCA.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

SB 1600 - Limit on Award of Attorney's Fees in Certain Proceedings against the State or State Agency (Companion: HB 3641)

· Summary: SB 1600, filed by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R - Brenham), would amend the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA) and limit the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in cases seeking declaratory relief against the state or a state agency to an amount “not to exceed to exceed $250,000.” The companion bill, HB 3641, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo),

· Bill Analysis for SB 1600: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB1600: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1600: On April 29^th, by a 7-1 vote, State Affairs voted SB 1600 out of committee. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 20, 2015. Several witnesses registered a position on the bill. TTLA and the Texas NAACP were among those organizations registering their opposition to the bill while TLR and the Texas Conservative Coalition registered as being in favor of the bill. A representative from the Attorney General’s Office was the only testifying witness. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1600 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Video Archive. Testimony about SB 1600 begins around the 32:20 mark.

· Fiscal Note for HB 3641: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 3641: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Only a representative from the Attorney General’s Office testified on HB 3641. A representative of TLR registered as being for the bill while TTLA registered as being opposed to the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3641 begins around the 3:55:20 mark. The bill was left pending.

Health Care Liability

HB 956 - Scope of a Health Care Liability Claim

· Summary: HB 956, filed by Rep. Chris Turner (D - Arlington/Grand Prairie), is similar to the bill filed by Rep. Turner that failed to pass in 2013 (i.e., HB 2644). It is the legislative response to a series of Supreme Court cases addressing the scope of “health care liability claims” under the Texas Medical Liability Act, including Texas West Oaks Hospital, L.P. v. Williams. Specifically, HB 956 would amend the terms “claimant” and “health care liability claim” in Chapter 74 of the CPRC in an effort to “clarify” the meaning of those terms. Specifically, the term “claimant” would mean a “patient, including a deceased patient’s estate”, instead of “person, including a decedent’s estate.” The term “claimant” would include “both the patient and the party seeking recovery of damages” in cases in which “a party seeks recovery of damages related to injury of another person who is a patient, or other harm to the patient.” The bill would also amend the definition of “health care liability claim” to specify that such claims arise from “treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety directly related to health care…” [emphasis added] and that the term “does not include claims arising from an injury to or death of a person who is not a patient, including employment and premises liability claims.”

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 956 was scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, the bill was pulled so no action was taken.

Insurance Claims

SB 1166 - Recovery of Damages for Delayed Payment of Certain Insurance Claims

· Summary: SB 1166, filed by Sen. Van Taylor (R - Plano), would amend the “Prompt Payment of Claims” section of the Insurance Code to provide additional instances in which an insurer would not be liable for damages due to a delay in paying on a first party claim. Under SB 1166, the damages-for-delay provisions would not apply if: (1) the amount of damages awarded as a result of arbitration or litigation is less than 80 percent of a settlement offer (as defined by section 42.001 of the CPRC) made by an insurer and rejected by the claimant; (2) a claimant fails to provide an affidavit of damages as defined by SB 1166; or (3) the insurer pays to the claimant the amount of damages awarded as a result of an appraisal no later than the 15th business day after the date the damages are awarded in the appraisal.

The “affidavit of damages” provisions in SB 1166 would require a claimant to provide an insurer with an affidavit containing the dollar amount of all damages the claimant intends to seek in a suit no later than the 30th day before the date the claimant commences the suit against the insurer. However, if a claimant ultimately seeks damages that exceed the amount in the claimant’s affidavit, the claimant would be required to provide the insurer with written notice of the excess amount by affidavit no later than the 15th day before the date the claimant files a pleading seeking the excess amount.

Under SB 1166, a claimant could also file a claim seeking damages as a “small claims case” (as provided by section 27.060 of the Government Code) if the disputed amount of the insurance claim does not exceed the maximum amount allowed for a small claims case as determined by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the total amount awarded in an action filed as a small claims case may not exceed two times the disputed amount of the claim. If a suit seeking damages is filed as a small claims case as provided by the Government Code, an insurer may elect to waive the insurer’s right to appeal no later than the 15th day after the date the suit is filed against the insurer.

Finally, SB 1166 would also amend section 542.060 of the Insurance Code to modify the damages provisions of that section. In addition to paying the amount of the claim, an insurer would be liable for interest only on the “disputed amount” of the claim, for reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, and, in small claims cases, for court costs if the insurer did not waive its right to appeal any judgment entered in the small claims case. SB 1166 would also add the following to the damages section of the “Prompt Payment of Claims” section of the Insurance Code: (1) the court will determine the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, but the amount of attorney’s fees must bear a reasonable relationship to the damages awarded by the trier of fact based on the disputed amount of the claim; (2) any interest awarded would begin to accrue on the date the claimant provided the affidavit of damages; and (3) an attorney cannot share attorney’s fees awarded with the claimant.

· Bill Status: Referred to Business & Commerce on March 17, 2015.

HB 3697 - Texas Department of Insurance Study of Claims Data and Recovery of Attorney's Fees in First Party Claims

· Summary: HB 3697, filed by Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R - Odessa), would section 542.062 of the Insurance Code and limit the recovery of attorney's fees in first party insurance claims to an amount equal to the recoverable economic damages. Under HB 3697, the Department of Insurance would be required to research and evaluate claims data made in the past five years to compare and establish an understanding between first party claims made, legal actions filed by claimants to recover damages, and complaints made by claimants to the Department, if any.

· Bill Status: Referred to Insurance on March 19, 2015.

HB 3822 - Recovery under Uninsured/Underinsured Insurance Coverage (Companion: HB 3533)

· Summary: HB 3822, filed by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D - Houston), would amend the Insurance Code by adding provisions that prohibit an insurer from requiring, as a prerequisite to asserting an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim, a judgment or other legal determination establishing the other motorist's liability or uninsured/underinsured status. Further, a judgment or other legal determination would not be a prerequisite to asserting a claim for unfair/deceptive acts or practices or for violations of the prompt payment of claims provisions of the Insurance Code. Under HB 3822, an insurer would be required to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim once liability and damages have become reasonably clear.

Also, under HB 3822, prejudgment interest would begin to accrue on the earlier of: (1) the 180th day after the date the claimant notifies the insurer of the claim; or (2) the date on which suit is filed against the insurer to recover uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. Further, for purposes of recovering attorney's fees under section 38.002 of the CPRC, a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage would be considered presented when the insurer receives notice of the claim.

The companion bill, HB 3533, was filed by Rep. Sergio Munoz, Jr. (D - Mission).

· Status of HB 3822: Referred to Insurance on March 23, 2015.

· Status of HB 3533: Referred to Insurance on March 18, 2015.

Judicial Selection

HB 2088 - Interim Study Regarding the Method by Which Judges and Justices are Selected

· Summary: HB 2088, filed by Rep. Justin Rodriguez (D - San Antonio), would create a joint interim committee on judicial selection (consisting a five (5) members from both the House and Senate) to study and review the method by which statutory county court, district and appellate justices/judges are selected for office. The joint committee would be required to report its findings and recommendation to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the House by January 6, 2017. HB 2088 is similar to HB 2772 that passed last session and was signed by Governor; however, the joint committee never met and a report was never generated.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 29^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 2088 out of committee, but it failed to pass in the House on May 14^th. The committee had conducted a public hearing on the bill on April 21, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups that either testified or registered a position on HB 2088: Witness List. No one testified against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2088 begins around the 1:35:45 mark.

Judiciary/Court Administration

SB 64 - Appellate Court Procedures and Deadlines in Civil Actions

· Summary: SB 64, which is also known as the “Appellate Court Accountability Act”, was filed by Sen. Don Huffines (R – Dallas). SB 64 would establish deadlines for the Supreme Court and intermediate courts of appeals to act on civil appeals.

Supreme Court Deadlines

SB 64 would give the Supreme Court ninety (90) days from the date of filing to deny a petition for review if the court does not request a response and one hundred eighty (180) days if it does not request briefing. The Court would be required to grant or deny the petition no later than three hundred (300) days after the petition is filed if the Court requests briefing. If the Court determined that the issues presented in a petition were related to issues in another case for which a petition has been granted and a decision pending, it could place the petition on hold until the Court decided the prior case. At such time, the Court would be required to publish the names of the parties to the petitions and the issues the Court has determined to be related. Once a decision has been issued in the case for which a petition was placed on hold, the Court would have thirty (30) days to grant or deny the petition.

The bill would also require the Supreme Court to issue a decision for all cases in which the Court grants a petition during the ”term of court” (i.e., the State’s fiscal year) in which the petition for review was granted. If a petition is granted in June or later, the Court could carry the case into the next term under “extraordinary circumstances” but must explain the nature of the “extraordinary circumstances” in the order granting the petition. Any case carried over would have to be decided no later than December 31^st of the next term.

SB 64 would also require the Court to adopt written procedures that allocate responsibilities to individual justices. The chief justice would be required to enforce the procedures and deadlines against individual justices. Such enforcement options would include prohibiting a justice from participating in future oral arguments, reassigning opinions, prohibiting a justice from participating in a new case, and referring a justice to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Intermediate Appellate Court Deadlines

SB 64 would require the courts of appeals to announce whether oral argument has been granted in a civil appeal no later than sixty (60) days after the “final brief” is filed. Oral argument must be held no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the date the final brief has been filed, and the court must issue its decision no later than ninety (90) days after oral argument (if granted) or the date the court announces that oral argument is denied.

The chief justice of each court of appeals would be required to enforce the deadlines in the same manner as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as submit a quarterly report to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding the court’s compliance with the deadlines. If a court of appeals fails to comply, the Chief Justice may prohibit the filing of additional appeals in that court and order the transfer of appeals to other courts. If a court of appeals was prohibited from accepting new appeals, justices of that court would not be credited with state service for the time period during which the court would be prohibit from accepting appeals, and the Legislative Budget Board and Governor would be required to reduce the non-complying court’s budget and shift money to courts receiving transfers. By January 31^st of each year, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would be required to submit a compliance report with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 26, 2015.

SB 443 - Study and Recommendations on Consolidating the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court

· Summary: SB 443, filed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D - Austin), would require the Judicial Council to study and make recommendations as to whether the CCA and the Supreme Court should be consolidated or whether one court should be abolished and its functions and jurisdiction transferred to the other court.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on February 9, 2015.

SB 524 - Review of State Laws Requiring an Action or Proceeding to be Brought in Travis County or a Travis County Court (Companion: HB 1427)

· Summary: SB 524, filed by Sen. Brian Birdwell (R - Granbury) and Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D - McAllen), would create a commission to review Texas laws to identify each statute and state agency rule that requires an action or proceeding to be brought or considered in Travis County, a Travis County district or statutory county court, or the Third Court of Appeals. The commission would be required to make recommendations on whether the location of the action or proceeding in each statute or state agency rule serves a legitimate state purpose, other than the convenience of the state agency, that supersedes the interests of persons required to travel to Travis County to attend or participate in the action or proceeding or whether the identified statute or state agency rule should be revised to authorize an action or proceeding to be brought or considered in another Texas county. The companion bill, HB 1427, was filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo).

· Status of SB 524: Referred to Business & Commerce on February 18, 2015.

· Bill Analysis for HB 1427: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1427: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1427: HB 1427 was voted out of committee, without amendments, on April 2, 2015. (Committee History: General Investigating & Ethics conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2015. No one testified for, against, or on the bill. Only one person registered to take a position on the bill and it was a registration of support: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1427 begins around the 2:11:15 mark.)

SB 967 - Authority of a District Clerk to Collect Fees for Providing Electronic Copies of Certain Court Records

· Summary: SB 967, filed by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R - Houston), would amend section 51.318 of the Government Code to prohibit a district clerk from charging a fee for noncertified electronic copies of any electronic document on file or of record in the clerk’s office, unless the copy is provided in a bulk distribution.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on March 10, 2015.

SB 1970 - Increase of Statewide Electronic Filing Fees

· Summary: SB 1970, filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston), would raise the statewide electronic filing system fund fee collected by various courts from $20 to $30.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 28^th, State Affairs voted SB 1970 out of committee by an 8-1 vote. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 23, 2015. A few witnesses appeared to testify or register a position on the bill. The only witness who testified for the bill was a single probate court judge. A representative of the Family Law Foundation registered as being opposed to SB 1970. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1970 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Video Archive. Testimony about SB 1970 begins around the 34:45 mark.

HB 427/HJR 49 - Creation of Texas Redistricting Commission

· Summary: HB 427 and HJR 49, filed by Rep. Donna Howard (D – Austin), would create the Texas Redistricting Commission (“TRC”), which would be responsible for adopting redistricting plans for the election of the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Senate, and the members of the United States House of Representatives elected from the state of Texas following each federal census. The TRC would also be responsible for reapportioning judicial districts in the event the Judicial Districts Board fails to reapportion the districts.

· Status of HB 427: Referred to Redistricting on February 16, 2015.

· Status of HJR 49: Referred to Redistricting on February 26, 2015.

HB 1416 - Judicial Recusal Based on Political Contributions

· Summary: HB 1416, authored by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would require justices on the Supreme Court and judges on the CCA (but apparently not intermediate appellate court justices) to “recuse himself or herself from any case in which the justice or judge has in the preceding four years accepted political contributions…in a total amount of $2,500 or more” from “(1) a party to the case, (2) attorney of record in the case, (3) the law firm of an attorney of record in the case, (4) the managing agent of a party to the case, (5) a member of the board of directors of a party to the case, or (6) a general-purpose committee…that is established or administered by a person who is a party to the case.” Similar legislation was filed in 2009, 2011, and 2013, all of which died in committee.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 9, 2015.

HB 1603 - Creation of the Chancery Court and Court of Chancery Appeals to Hear Certain Cases

· Summary: HB 1603, filed by Rep. Jason Villalba (R - Dallas), would create a statewide specialized civil trial court and an appellate court to hear certain business-related litigation cases, such as actions against businesses, accusations of wrongdoing by businesses or their members, disputes between businesses, violations of Business Organizations Code, Finance Code, and Business & Commerce Code. This court would have no jurisdiction over governmental entities (absent the government entity invoking or consenting to jurisdiction) or personal injury cases unless agreed to by the parties and the court. Some of the other notable components of the bill are:

o The chancery court would be composed of seven (7) judges who are appointed by the governor for staggered six (6) year terms. The judges would be selected from a list of qualified candidates compiled by a bipartisan advisory council (Chancery Court Nominations Advisory Council) and would be required to have at least 10 years of experience in complex business law.

o The court clerk would be located in Travis County, but individual judges would be based in the county seat of their respective counties.

o Current venue rules would apply, but cases could be heard in an agreed-upon county or where the court may decide to be more convenient or necessary.

o There would be a removal procedure for cases filed in a district court.

o The Courts of Chancery Appeals, which would handle appeals from the chancery trial court, would be composed of seven (7) justices from current court of appeals justices that are appointed by the governor based on a list of qualified candidates compiled by the advisory council. Justices would serve six (6) year terms and would hear cases in panels of three (3) randomly-selected justices. Appeals from the CCA would go to the Supreme Court.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16^th, Business & Industry voted HB 1603 out of committee (by a 4-3 vote). The bill’s author had originally intended to amend the bill once it reaches the House floor; however, the committee held another public meeting on April 21^st and adopted the amended bill. Under the amendments, the bill would (1) exempt certain types of cases from the chancery court’s subject matter jurisdiction (e.g., cases brought under the Estates Code, Family Code, the DTPA, and Title 9 (Trusts) of the Property Code) and (2) increase the minimum amount in controversy to $10 million dollars for certain types of chancery court cases. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill. Those testifying in support of HB 1603 included former Chief Justice Tom Phillips and a representative from the Texas Business Law Foundation. Those testifying against the bill included representatives from TTLA, TADC, and TEX-ABOTA. Here is a complete list of those who testified or otherwise registered a position on the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1603 begins around the 2:28:30 mark.) Note: After the initial public hearing, the SBOT granted the requests of the Litigation Section and Judicial Section to oppose HB 1603. The Business Law Section was given permission to support the bill.

HB 1656 - Public Financing of Campaigns for Appellate Judicial Offices

· Summary: HB 1656, filed by Rep. Rafael Anchia (D - Dallas), is essentially the same bill that Rep. Anchia filed in 2013 (HB 1126) and died in committee. HB 1656 would affect the manner in which appellate justice/judge campaigns are financed by providing a public financing option for eligible candidates. Specifically, under HB 1656, a candidate could request public financing by filing a petition signed by a specific number of qualified voters who also make a minimum contribution to the candidate’s campaign. Once the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) declares that a candidate has met the eligibility standards, the candidate could begin receiving distributions from the fund and could no longer accept contributions from private contributors or benefit from the direct campaign expenditures on the candidate’s behalf. The fund would be composed of any amounts appropriated or gifted, as well as by civil penalties levied by the TEC.

· Bill Status: Referred to Elections on March 9, 2015.

HB 2730 - Creation of Fifteenth District Court of Appeals

· Summary: HB 2370, filed by Rep. Phil Stephenson (R - Rosenberg), would create the Fifteenth District Court of Appeals, which would sit in Edinburg and be composed of Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties. The court would consist of three (3) justices. Under HB 2370, the number of justices on the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals would be reduced to three (3) justices.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On May 7^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 2730 out of committee, without amendment, by a 5-3 vote (1 absent). The committee conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were several individuals and groups registered to testify for, on, or against HB 2730: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2730 begins around the 1:04:00 mark.

HB 3426 - Jurisdiction of Statutory County Courts at Law

· Summary: HB 3426, filed by Rep. Gilbert Pena (R - Pasadena), would amend section 25.0003(c)(1) of the Government Code and modify the jurisdiction of statutory county courts at law in the following manner:

“civil cases in which the matter in controversy exceeds $500 but does not exceed $200,000, excluding interest [, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney ’s fees and costs, as alleged on the face of the petition].”

In other words, under HB 3426, statutory or punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs would be included in determining the amount in controversy for purposes of determining jurisdiction.

· Bill Status: HB 3426 had been scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, no action was taken by the committee as the author had asked that the hearing be rescheduled.

HB 3430 - Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

· Summary: HB 3430, filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston), would amend Chapter 22 of the Government Code and essentially require that the Supreme Court be given an opportunity to review any constitutional rulings by the Court of Criminal Appeals before the rulings became final and effective. More specifically, HB 3430 would add the following sections 22.1025 and 22.002(f) to the Government Code:

Sec. 22.1025: “(a) Any ruling by the court of criminal appeals that any statute, rule, or procedure violates either the state or federal constitutions shall not be final and shall have no effect until the later of: (1) 60 days following the ruling; or (2) The denial or dismissal of a petition filed in the supreme court pursuant to Section 22.002(f) of the Government Code.”

Section 22.002(f): “Whenever the court of criminal appeals determines that a statute, rule, or procedure is unconstitutional, the supreme court, on the petition of the attorney general or a district or county attorney, has original civil jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto and mandamus to correct any error in the court of criminal appeals ’ determination.” Section 22.002(f) would apply regardless of whether (1) the CCA rules under the Texas Constitution, U.S. Constitution, or both; (2) the constitutional ruling by the CCA is characterized as criminal or civil; or (3) the ruling by the CCA is characterized as final or non-final.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Former Chief Justice Tom Phillips was one of the individuals who testified in support of HB 3430. A representative for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association testified against the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3430 begins around the 2:16:30 mark. The bill was left pending.

HJR 62 - Constitutional Amendment Regarding the Recording and Publication of Certain Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals Proceedings (Related Bill: HB 3932)

· Summary: HJR 62, filed by Rep. Rep. Terry Canales (D- Edinburg), would amend the Texas Constitution and require the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals to make a video recording (or other electronic visual and audio recording) of each oral argument, proceeding, and open meeting of each court and post the recording on each court’s website. Rep. Canales subsequently filed HB 3932 to correct some of the issues raised by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence during the March 10^th hearing on HJR 62 (discussed below).

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HJR 62: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Although no witnesses testified against the concept, there was much discussion about the scope of the resolution (e.g., whether “proceedings” would encompass internal conferences, etc.) and whether a constitutional amendment was the correct vehicle to impose the recording requirement. The Supreme Court already records oral argument and other public meetings and posts the recordings on its website, so much of the discussion centered around the CCA. For those interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 62 begins around the 1:09 mark. HJR 62 remains pending.

· Status of HB 3932: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

HJR 81 - Constitutional Amendment to Change the Terms of District Court Judges to Six Years

· Summary: HJR 81, filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would increase the terms of district court judges from four years to six years. A similar bill was filed in 2013, but failed to get out of committee.

HJR 90 - Constitutional Amendment to Abolish the Court of Criminal Appeals

· Summary: HJR 90, also filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would abolish the CCA and give jurisdiction of criminal appeals to the Supreme Court. Similar legislation was filed in 2009, 2011, and 2013, each of which died in committee. Under HJR 90, death penalty cases would be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, while all other criminal cases would go through the court of appeals. In non-death penalty cases that make it to the Supreme Court, the justices would sit in panels of three. The Supreme Court would hear death penalty cases en banc.

· Status of HJR 90: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on May 5, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Witness List. Testimony about HJR 90 begins around the 2:28:25 mark. The resolution was left pending.

Lawsuit Financing/Lending

HB 3454 - Assignment of Rights in an Individual's Legal Claim

· Summary: HB 3454, filed by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D - Houston), seeks to regulate “civil justice funding” transactions and “civil justice funding companies,” and would permit a civil justice funding company to enter into a “non-recourse transaction in which [the] civil justice funding company purchases, and a consumer assigns to the company, a contingent right to receive an amount of the potential proceeds of a settlement, judgment, award, or verdict obtained in the consumer’s legal claim” provided that the transaction is documented via a written contract that complies with the requirements set forth in the statute. The bill specifies that a civil justice funding transaction may not be considered a loan or subject to state laws governing loans (including limits on interest rates). A similar bill (HB 1254) was filed by Rep. Thompson in 2013, but it died in committee.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3454 begins around the 5:15 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 3218 - Litigation Finance Agreements

· Summary: HB 3218, filed by Rep. Anna Hernandez (D - Houston), would add Chapter 354 to the Finance Code and establish statutory requirements for “litigation financing agreements.” Under HB 3218, a litigation financing agreement would be defined as an agreement under which “money is provided to or on behalf of a consumer by a litigation financing company for a purpose other than prosecuting the consumer’s legal claim” and “the repayment of the money is in accordance with a litigation financing transaction the terms of which are included as part of the litigation financing agreement.”

HB 3218 would require litigation financing agreements to: (1) be in writing; (2) contain the initials of the consumer on each page; and (3) be “otherwise complete” when presented to the consumer for signature. Other required terms and disclosures, which must be on the front page of the agreement under appropriate headings, would include the following: (1) the funded amount to be paid to the consumer by the litigation financing company; (2) an itemization of one-time charges; (3) the total amount to be assigned by the consumer to the company, including the funded amount and all charges; and (4) a payment schedule that: (a) includes the funded amount and charges; and (b) lists all dates and the amount due at the end of each 180-day period from the funding date until the due date of the maximum amount due to the company by the consumer to satisfy the amount owed under the agreement.

A similar bill (HB 1595) was voted out of committee last session, but was never voted on by the entire House.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Patent Infringement Claims

SB 1187 - Patent Infringement Claims (Companion: HB 3176)

· Summary: SB 1187, filed by Sen. Van Taylor (R - Plano), would add Chapter 2005 to the Business & Commerce Code and prohibit bad faith patent infringement claims. More specifically, SB 1187 would prohibit a person from sending a demand letter that makes, in bad faith, a claim of patent infringement against a Texas resident, and in connection with the claim: (1) files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement; (2) threatens to file a lawsuit if the alleged patent infringement is not resolved; or (3) makes a demand for compensation or damages or payment of a license fee based on the alleged patent infringement. For purposes of SB 1187, a person makes a claim of patent infringement in bad faith if: (1) the claim is objectively baseless, meaning that no reasonable litigant could reasonably expect success on the merits; and (2) the person making the claim knows or should have known that the claim is objectively baseless. However, a claim of patent infringement would be presumed to be made in good faith if the claim is made by a person who holds a certificate of authority issued by the Attorney General under Chapter 2005 or is a claim for relief arising under federal law.

SB 1187 would not create a private cause of action, but would authorize the Attorney General to enforce any violations of Chapter 2005. The bill would also create two information databases-- one for persons sending demand letters and another for the demand letters themselves, both of which would be maintained by the Secretary of State.

The companion bill, HB 3176, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo).

· Bill Analysis of SB 1187: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1187: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1187: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 9, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the Senate Video Archive. Testimony about SB 1187 begins around the 39:10:00 mark. A committee substitute was offered that deletes any criminal penalty for barratry, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

· Status of HB 3176: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on May 5, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, or against the bill. Here is a witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Witness List. Testimony about HB 3176 begins around the 5:09:40 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but it has yet to be posted. It is my understanding that the committee substitute would give the AG power to investigate demands made in bad faith. The bill was left pending.

Product Liability Claims

HB 1988 - Liability of Manufacturers and Sellers for Misuse of Products

· Summary: HB 1988, filed by Rep. Drew Springer (R - Gainesville), would amend Chapter 82 of the CPRC to address the liability of a product manufacturer or seller for the subsequent misuse of a product. More specifically, the bill would add section 82.0045 to the CPRC and provide that, in a products liability action, a manufacturer or seller would not be liable “for any claim arising out of harm caused by misuse of a product by a person other than the manufacturer or seller.” HB 1988 would also allow the court to, on its own motion and after reasonable notice to the parties, dismiss a claim filed after September 1, 2015, “if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim was caused by misuse of a product by a person other than the manufacturer or the seller.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 12, 2015.

Qualifications for Public Office and Term Limits

SJR 6 - Constitutional Amendment to Provide Qualifications for and Limit the Time that a Person May Serve in Certain Offices

· Summary: SJR 6, filed by Sen. Don Huffines (R – Dallas), proposes a constitutional amendment that would place terms limits on legislators (12 years) and would limit the amount of time that a legislator could serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives or as a committee chair. SJR 6 would also impose term limits on almost the entire Texas judiciary. For example, SJR 6 would bar Supreme Court justices and CCA judges from re-election if they had previously been elected to two full terms; however, the intermediate appellate court justices would not be subject to the term limits imposed under the current version of SJR 6. SJR 6 would also apply to "every district office or office of a political subdivision of this state that is filled by popular election," which appears to include district judges, county court-at-law judges, justices of the peace and county and district attorneys. All would be ineligible for re-election if they had served eight years or more. SJR 6 would become effective in 2016.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 27, 2015.

SJR 24 - Constitutional Amendment Limiting to Two the Number of Consecutive Terms for Which a Person may be Elected or Appointed to Hold Certain State Offices (Companion: HJR 38)

· Summary: SJR 24, filed by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R - Tyler), would prohibit a person who has been elected or appointed to serve two consecutive terms in an office listed in Article IV, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution (i.e., Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Commissioner of the General Land Office, and Attorney General), as well as “any other statewide elective office, other than a statewide judicial office,” from serving for a third consecutive term. However, SJR would not limit a person ’s eligibility for election or appointment to serve nonconsecutive terms. The companion resolution, HJR 38, was filed by Rep. Lyle Larson (R - San Antonio).

· Status of SJR 24: Referred to State Affairs on February 2, 2015.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HJR 38: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 18, 2015. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 38 begins around the 2:07:45 mark. The resolution remains pending.

Survival Actions

HB 3416 - Authority of Certain Persons to Bring a Survival Action

· Summary: HB 3416, filed by Rep. Larry Phillips (R - Sherman), would amend section 71.021 of the CPRC by adding the following section (b-1): “A legal representative of the estate of the injured person may bring the action or, if no action is filed by a legal representative of the estate, one or more heirs may bring the action for the benefit of all heirs and the estate of the injured person.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 17, 2015.

Trial Court Procedure

SB 1534 – Venue in Lawsuits Filed Against the State of Texas or State Agency

· Summary: SB 1534, filed by Rep. Konni Burton (R - Colleyville), would amend the CPRC to add section 15.021, which would provide that a lawsuit against the State of Texas or a state agency may be brought in either Travis County or “a county in which the court of appeals is held for a court of appeals district that includes the county in which the plaintiff: (a) resided at the time of the accrual of the cause of action; or (b) resides at the time the suit is brought.”

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on March 23, 2015.

HB 241 - Substituted Service of Citation Through Social Media

· Summary: HB 241, filed by Rep. Jeff Leach (R - Plano), would add section 17.302 to the CPRC and permit a court to authorize service of process via electronic communication through a “social media presence” if substituted service is authorized under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HB 241 would also require the Supreme Court to promulgate rules to provide for substituted service through social media. Rep. Leach filed a similar bill in 2013 (HB 1989), but it died in committee.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 241 out of committee, without amendment, on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. There was a considerable amount of discussion about the appropriateness of serving a defendant via social media. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 241 begins around the 13:20 mark.)

HB 2211 - Agreed Venue Selection in Civil Actions

· Summary: HB 2211, filed by Rep. John Wray (R - Waxahachie), would amend CPRC section 15.020 and require a court to transfer an action to another county if the parties consent to the transfer and the motion to transfer is filed before trial begins.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

Wrongful Life/Birth Causes of Action

HB 1367 - Elimination of Wrongful Life/Birth Causes of Action

· Summary: HB 1367, filed by Rep. Gilbert Pena (R - Pasadena), would amend the CPRC to expressly eliminate “wrongful life” and “wrongful birth” causes of action.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 9, 2015.

HB 3008 - Elimination of Wrongful Birth Cause of Action

· Summary: HB 3008, filed by Rep. Ron Simmons (R - Carrollton), would amend the CPRC to expressly prohibit a cause of action and damages arising on a claim that “but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted.”

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 29^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 3008 out of committee without amendment. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3008 begins around the 3:19:30 mark.

 

May 16, 2015 

As you might expect, there was a flurry activity in the House this past week as legislators attempted to get pending bills out of committee or put to a vote on the House floor (or both) before critical deadlines passed. Last Thursday (May 14^th) was the last day for bills that originated in the House to be considered on the floor of the House in order to have a realistic chance of surviving the regular session. Many of the monitored House bills did not make it out of committee or receive a vote by May 14^th, so they will die unless the text of the bills can be added to another bill via amendment or a companion bill in the Senate is passed. A few of the notable bills that did not reach the House floor for a vote were HB 241 (Service of Citation through Social Media), HB 562 (Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Family Law Cases), and HB 1603 (Creation of Chancery Courts).

On the other hand, several monitored bills continued to move through the legislative process. For example, SJR 8 (Constitutional Amendment Authorizing the Legislature to Require a Court to Provide Notice to the Attorney General of Constitutional Challenges to State Statutes) was passed by the Senate. SB 627 (Certain Privileged Publications are Not Grounds for Libel Actions), SB 1116 (Relating to Notices or Documents sent by Mail/Email by a Court, Court Clerk, or Judge), HB 3364 (Appeals of Eviction Suit Judgments), and HB 1403 (Defining Health Care Liability Claims for Purposes of Certain Claims) were passed by the House. House and Senate committees also voted two (2) other monitored bills out of committee. And finally, on May 15^th, SB 534 (Oath of Persons Admitted to Practice Law in Texas) was signed into law by Governor Abbott.

As in past updates, the bill number links above and in the “The Week in Review” and “The Week Ahead” sections that will take you to the summaries for each bill in the “Monitored Legislation” section.

The Week in Review

The following seven (7) monitored bills/resolutions were voted out of committee or passed by the Senate/House:

SJR 8 – Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Legislature to Require a Court to Provide Notice to the Attorney General of a Constitutional Challenge to State Statutes (passed by Senate)

SB 627 – Relating to Certain Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for a Libel Action (voted out of House committee and subsequently passed by the full House)

SB 735 – Availability and Use of Certain Evidence in Connection with an Award of Exemplary Damages (voted out of House committee)

SB 824 – Number of Jurors Required in Certain Civil Cases Pending in Statutory County Court (voted out of House committee)

SB 1116 – Notices or Documents Sent by Mail or Email by a Court, Court Clerk, or Judge (passed by House),

HB 3364 – Appeals of Eviction Suit Judgments (passed by House)

HB 1403 – Defining Health Care Liability Claim for Purposes of Certain Claims (passed by House)

The status of each bill, as well as the others that experienced some form of activity last week, have been updated below.

The Week Ahead

The following three (3) monitored bills/resolutions are currently scheduled for public hearing this week:

SB 512 – Promulgation of Forms for Use in Probate Matters

SB 1457 – Bad Faith Patent Infringement Claims

HB 1692 – Doctrine of Foreign Non Conveniens

Of course, others bills not currently scheduled for hearing could be heard during the upcoming week. However, by next Saturday (May 23^rd), House committees must have heard and voted all Senate bills out of committee or they will die.

Monitored Legislation

The subject-matter groupings below that include bills scheduled for hearing have been marked with an “++”. The status of each bill has been updated below and, where appropriate, links to hearing notices, witness lists, bill analyses, video/audio broadcasts, and other related documents have been posted for each bill. (Note: If you would rather jump-down to a category of bills instead of perusing the entire list from top-to-bottom, you can click on the subject heading.)

Appellate Procedure

Attorney's Fees/Fee Agreements

Attorneys - Practice of Law

Certificate of Merit

Collaborative Law

Constitutional Challenges to Texas Statutes

Construction Defect Claims

Damages

Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Decisions Based on Foreign Laws (Non-Family Law Proceedings)

Defamation/Libel

Elections

Evictions

Family Law

Governmental Immunity

Health Care Liability

Insurance

Judicial Selection

Judiciary/Court Administration

Lawsuit Financing/Lending

Patent Infringement Claims++

Probate Court Proceedings++

Product Liability Claims

Qualifications for Public Office/Term Limits

Survival Actions

Trial Court Procedure++

Wrongful Birth/Life Causes of Action

Appellate Procedure

HB 1494 - Filing of the Reporter's Record

· Summary: HB 1494, filed by Rep. Bryan Hughes (R - Mineola), would amend section 52.047 of the Government Code to state that a court reporter would not be required to file an official transcript of a trial before the 60^th day after the date a notice of appeal is filed. However, this amendment would not apply to accelerated or interlocutory appeals.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 1494 out of committee without amendment. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1494 begins around the 1:41:00 mark.)

Attorney’s Fees/Fee Agreements

HB 230 - Recovery of Attorney's Fees in Certain Civil Cases

· Summary: HB 230, filed by Rep. Jessica Farrar (D - Houston), would amend Chapter 38.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code (CPRC) to (1) add “other legal entity” to the list of those from whom attorney’s fees can be recovered; and (2) expressly provide that Chapter 38.001 does not authorize the recovery of attorney’s fees from the state, an agency or institution of the state, or a political subdivision. The bill would further provide that the amendment to Chapter 38.001 does not affect any other statute that permits the recovery of attorney’s fees from the governmental entities listed in the statute.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 230 was passed by the full House on April 9^th. On May 4^th, the bill was referred to State Affairs in the Senate. (House Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 230 begins around the 1:47:30 mark. HB 230 was voted out of committee without amendments on March 17^th.)

HB 247 - Limitations on Certain Actions Arising Out of Attorney's Fee Agreements

· Summary: HB 247, filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would place limitations on claims that could be brought under contingent fee agreements that comply with the statute (i.e., agreements that expressly state the method by which a fee is determined; that litigation and other expenses will be deducted from the recovery; and whether litigation expenses and other expenses are deducted before or after the contingent fee is calculated). The limitations in HB 247 would also apply to contingency fee agreements in which an attorney represents two or more clients and enters into an aggregate settlement agreement of the clients’ claims if the agreement expressly discloses: 1) the existence and nature of all claims or pleas involved; 2) the nature and extent of the participation of each client in the settlement; and 3) the amount of remittance to each client and the method by which the remittance will be determined.

HB 247 would permit a party to bring a claim arising out of an agreement subject to the statute only on the grounds that the agreement was obtained by corruption, coercion, force, fraud, or other undue means, or that the agreement was forged. Further, in a claim arising out of the settlement of matters involving multiple clients that is brought on grounds other than those permitted by HB 247, the settlement will be “irrebuttably presumed” to be: 1) fully disclosed, read, understood, and voluntarily entered into by all parties to the agreement; 2) fair, accepted, reasonable, and made in the best interests of the parties by the parties or through their attorneys; and 3) final and not subject to subsequent litigation.

On the motion of a party, a court will be required to dismiss with prejudice any action involving claims arising out of an agreement that is subject to HB 247 if the action is brought on grounds other than those permitted by HB 247.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 5, 2015.

HB 1531 - Referrals for Legal Services by Legislators and Executive Officers

· Summary: HB 1531, filed by Rep. Charlie Geren (R - Fort Worth), would add section 572.063 to the Government Code and prohibit a member of the legislature or an executive officer elected in a statewide election who is a member of the State Bar of Texas or who is licensed to practice law in another state or a United States territory from making or receiving any referral for legal services for monetary compensation or any other benefit unless the referral complied with State Bar rules and is evidenced by a written contract between the parties who are subject to the referral. A violation of this law would be a Class A misdemeanor. The original version of the bill prohibited referrals without exception.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 2^nd, General Investigating & Ethics voted the committee substitute out of committee and sent the bill to Calendars on April 7^th. (Committee History: General Investigating & Ethics conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2015. No one testified for, against, or on the bill. Only one person registered to take a position on the bill and it was a registration of support. Here is the Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1531 begins around the 2:08:00 mark.)

Attorneys – Practice of Law

SB 534 - Oath of Persons Admitted to Practice Law in Texas (Companions: HB 1644; HB 1909)

· Summary: SB 534, filed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D - Austin), would amend section 82.037 of the Government Code and revise the oath taken by all attorneys admitted to practice law in Texas so as to require attorneys to conduct themselves “with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties.” Companion bills, HB 1644 and 1909, were filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo) and Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi) respectively.

· Bill Analysis for SB 534: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 534: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 534: On May 15, 2015, Governor Abbott signed SB 534 into law. (Senate/Senate Committee History: On March 2, 2015, State Affairs conducted a hearing on SB 534. All who appeared before the committee, including representatives from the Texas Trial Lawyers Association (TTLA), the Texas Association of Defense Counsel (TADC), and the Texas Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates (TEX-ABOTA), testified in support of the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 534 begins around the 44:55 mark. The bill was unanimously voted out of committee.)(House/House Committee History: On April 30^th, after having been considered by and voted out of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 28^th, the full House passed SB 534 without amendment, thereby making it eligible for the Governor to sign into law. The Senate had unanimously passed SB 534 on March 24^th).)

· Bill Analysis for HB 1644: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1644: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1644: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 1644 out of committee without amendment. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 24, 2015. Several testified in support of the bill. No one opposed it. Those who testified are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1644 begins around the 1:02:35 mark.)

SB 765 - Repeal of Occupation Tax (Companion: HB 2089)

· Summary: SB 765, filed by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R - Tyler), would repeal the $200 annual attorney occupation tax, as well as other occupation taxes on licensed professionals. The companion bill, HB 2089, was filed by Rep. Drew Darby (R - San Angelo), but multiple representatives have joined in on the bill.

· Bill Analysis for SB 765: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 765: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 765: Senate Finance conducted a hearing on many “tax relief” bills, including SB 765, on March 3, 2015. Public testimony was taken on March 4^th. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcasts of the hearings: Senate Archived Broadcasts (March 3rd) and Senate Archived Video (Public Testimony - March 4th) . Testimony about SB 765 at the March 3^rd hearing begins around the 10:45 mark; public testimony at the March 4^th hearing begins around the 1:19:20 mark. Here is the list of witnesses who testified about the bill: Witness List. The bill remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for HB 2089: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 2089: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2089: On April 23, 2015, the House unanimously passed HB 2089. The bill was received by the Senate and referred to Senate Finance on April 28^th. (Committee History: Licensing & Administrative Procedures conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Several testified or registered in support of the bill. No one opposed it. Those who testified or registered in support of HB 2089 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony on HB 2089 begins around the 2:07:25 mark. The committee approved a committee substitute for HB 2089 and voted it out of committee on April 6, 2015.)

SB 1430 – Eligibility of Attorneys Licensed Outside of State to Take Bar Exam (Companion: HB 2045)

· Summary: SB 1430, filed by Sen. Bob Hall (R - Rockwall), would amend the Government Code by adding section 82.025 and would permit an attorney licensed to practice law in another state to take the Texas bar examination regardless of whether the attorney has completed the study of law in an approved law school if the attorney: (1) is a United States citizen; and (2) satisfies all other requirements to be licensed in Texas. The companion bill, HB 2045, was filed by Rep. James White (R - Woodville).

· Status of SB 1430: Referred to State Affairs on March 18, 2015.

· Fiscal Note for HB 2045: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2045: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 2045 begins around the 49:20 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 2624 - Effects of Default on a Student Loan Administered by Higher Education Coordinating Board on License Renewals

· Summary: HB 2624, filed by Rep. Chris Turner (D - Arlington/Grand Prairie), would amend the Education Code to prevent licensed professionals (including licensed attorneys) who are in default on student loans administered by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) from having their professional licenses renewed. Under the bill, THCEB would receive a list of licensees from the applicable licensing board/agency to determine if any of the licensees are in default on their loans and then send a default list back to the licensing board/agency. A person who was in default could enter a repayment plan with the THECB, at which time the licensing board/agency could still renew the license as long as the licensee was current on repayments. The licensing agency would have to provide a hearing before non-renewing a license. Under HB 2624, the licensing board/agency would create its own rules to carry out the bill's provisions. The bill specifically requires the Supreme Court to create the rules for non-renewing law licenses.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 1^st, HB 2624 was voted out of committee without amendments and was recommended for the Local & Consent calendar. (Committee History: Higher Education conducted a public hearing on March 25, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2624 begins around the 26:50 mark.)

Certificate of Merit

HB 1353 - Certificates of Merit for Certain Professionals (Companion: SB 1579)

· Summary: HB 1353, filed by Rep. Charlie Geren (R - Fort Worth), would add a definition of “claimant” to CPRC section 150.001, which is the statute that requires a person to file an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor with a claim for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional. For purposes of the statute, “claimant” would mean a party, including a plaintiff, counter-claimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff, seeking recovery of damages. The current statute uses only the undefined term “plaintiff.” The companion bill, SB 1579, was filed by Sen. Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay).

· Status of HB 1353: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 17, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1353 begins around the 10:00 mark.

· Status of SB 1579: Referred to State Affairs on March 23, 2015.

Collaborative Law

HB 2512 - Adoption of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act

· Summary: HB 2512, filed by Rep. Bill Zedler (R - Arlington), would add Chapter 160 to the CPRC and adopt the Uniform Collaborative Law Act in order to clarify rules about the mechanics of collaborative law. Collaborative law is a voluntary process that is intended to provide for a form of limited scope representation in which an attorney is retained solely for the purpose of reaching a settlement, and expressly not for the purpose of litigation.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either for, on, or against the bill. Two individuals/attorneys testified in favor of HB 2512. Representatives from TTLA, TADC, and TEX-ABOTA all testified against it. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 2512 begins around the 2:50:00 mark. The bill remains pending,

Constitutional Challenges to Texas Statutes

SJR 8 - Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Legislature to Require a Court to Provide Notice to the Attorney General of a Constitutional Challenge to State Statutes

· Summary: SJR 8, filed by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D - Laredo), would amend the Texas Constitution to specifically authorize the Legislature to (1) require a court to notify the attorney general of a challenge to the constitutionality of a Texas statute, and (2) prescribe a reasonable period after notice is provided during which the court may not enter a judgment holding a statute unconstitutional. [Note: SJR 8 is the legislative response to the 2013 decision by the CCA holding that section 402.010(a)-(b) of the Government Code, which prevents a court from entering a final judgment until the AG is notified of a constitutional challenge to a statute, violated the separation-of-powers principles set forth in the Texas Constitution]. As you may recall, the Legislature passed legislation in 2011 (HB 2425) amending the Government Code to require courts to notify the AG when constitutional challenges to state statutes were raised. The law was amended in 2013 to place the burden of notifying the court of the pleading that should be served on the AG on the party raising the constitutional challenge (SB 392).

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On May 12, 2015, the full Senate unanimously voted to pass SJR 8. The bill was subsequently sent to the House and was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on May 14^th. (Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on May 7, 2015 and unanimously voted the resolution out of committee on May 8^th. Here is the witness list and a link to the archive broadcast of the hearing: Senate Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about SJR 8 around the 1:29:40 mark.)

Construction Defect Claims

HB 1784 - Construction Defect Claims

· Summary: HB 1784, filed by Rep. Paul Workman (R - Austin), would amend section 41.015 of the CPRC to establish a 10-year statute of repose for construction defect claims against the person who actually designed, administered, constructed, or repaired an improvement to real property. The statute of repose would apply only to the actual costs incurred in curing a construction defect and the amount of damages for cost to cure would be reduced by 10% on each anniversary date of substantial completion of the construction of repair that occurs before the date the action is filed. An award of exemplary damages, multiplied damages, or other damages computed on the basis of the amount of damages for the cost to cure the defect would have to reflect any reduction made under section 41.015.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Construction industry representatives testified in support of HB 1784, while TTLA and representatives of the cities of Fort Worth and Austin opposed the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1784 begins around the 1:53:20 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but has yet to be posted. The bill was left pending.

Damages

HB 419 - Federal Income Tax Liability for Damages Awarded in Civil Actions

· Summary: HB 419, filed by Rep. Gene Wu (D – Houston), would amend Chapter 41 of the CPRC to require a defendant to compensate a claimant for federal income tax liability arising out of a damages award.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either against or on the bill, most of which (all insurance and/or contractor representatives) were against it. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 419 begins around the 1:39:00 mark. A committee substitute was proposed that reportedly includes a 2-year limitation period for defendants to be liable for compensation under this bill, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

HB 820 - Liability for Damages Arising from Certain Motor Vehicle Accidents

· Summary: HB 820, filed by Rep. Ed Thompson (R - Pearland), would amend the CPRC by adding Chapter 72A, which would prevent an uninsured driver who was in a car accident from recovering exemplary and noneconomic damages in a lawsuit for bodily injury, death or property damage. The same prohibition would apply to derivative claims arising out of the accident, such as claims for wrongful death or loss of consortium or companionship. However, the prohibition would not apply to claims brought by the uninsured driver in a representative capacity (e.g., as next friend if the uninsured driver’s minor child was injured) or if the at-fault driver was driving drunk, acted willfully or was grossly negligent, had fled the scene, or was committing a felony when the accident happened.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 3, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups registered to testify both for and against HB 820: Witness List. TTLA and Texas Watch provided oral testimony in opposition to the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 820 begins around the 3:30 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but the bill remains pending.

HB 969 - Availability and Use of Certain Evidence in Connection with an Award of Exemplary Damages (Companion: SB 735)

· Summary: The original version of HB 969, filed by Rep. Ken King (R - Hemphill), sought to amend section 41.011 of the CPRC and eliminate “the net worth of defendant” as one of the elements considered in determining the amount of exemplary damages. However, the committee substitute approved by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee does two different things: (1) it would define “net worth” to mean “the total assets of a person minus the total liabilities of the person on a date determined appropriate by the trial court;” and (2) it would add section 41.0115 to the CPRC and would provider as follows:

“Sec. 41.0115. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OF NET WORTH FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CLAIM. (a) On the motion of a party and after notice and a hearing, a trial court may authorize discovery of evidence of a defendant's net worth if the court finds in a written order that the claimant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages. Evidence submitted by a party to the court in support of or in opposition to a motion made under this subsection may be in the form of an affidavit or a response to discovery. (b) If a trial court authorizes discovery under Subsection (a), the court's order may only authorize use of the least burdensome method available to obtain the net worth evidence. (c) When reviewing an order authorizing or denying discovery of net worth evidence under this section, the reviewing court may consider only the evidence submitted by the parties to the trial court in support of or in opposition to the motion described by Subsection (a).”

The companion to the original bill, SB 735, was filed by Sen. Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay).

· Bill Analysis for HB 969: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 969: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 969: By a 5-4 vote, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted the committee substitute for HB 969 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified or registered either for, on or against HB 969. Representatives from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and businesses/organizations were in favor of the bill. A TTLA representative testified against the bill. A TADC representative also testified, but did not take a position on HB 969. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 969 begins around the 3:30:35 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 735: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 735: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 735: By a 20-11 vote, the full Senate passed SB 735 on April 28, 2015. In the House, the bill was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on May 4^th and then unanimously voted out of committee, without amendments, by a 5-4 vote on May 13^th. (Senate Committee History: By a 7-2 vote, State Affairs voted SB 735 out of committee on April 22, 2015. The committee conducted a public hearing on April 13, 2015. Several witnesses testified or registered either for, on or against SB 735. Representatives from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and businesses/organizations were in favor of the bill. A TTLA representative testified against the bill. A TADC representative testified, but did not take a position on SB 735. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 735 begins around the 2:37:40 mark.)

Deceptive Trade Practices Act

HB 2898 - Relating to Certain DTPA Procedures, Civil Penalties, and Remedies

· Summary: HB 2898, filed by Rep. Sarah Davis (R - Houston), would amend sections 17.45(9) and (13) of the Business & Commerce Code in order to modify the definitions of “intentionally” and “knowingly” and certain portions of the provisions related to the consumer protection division of the AG’s office (i.e., sections 17.47, 17.60, and 17.61). More specifically, HB 2898 would (a) substitute the phrase “misleading nature” for the word “unfairness” in the “knowingly” definition in section 17.45(9); and (b) change the definition of “intentionally” to read as follows:

(13) "Intentionally" means actual awareness, at the time of the act or practice complained of, of the falsity, deception, or misleading nature [unfairness] of the act or practice giving rise to the consumer ’s claim [,] or the condition, defect, or failure constituting a breach of warranty giving rise to the consumer’s claim, coupled with the specific intent that the consumer act in detrimental reliance on the act, practice, condition, defect, or failure [falsity or deception or in detrimental ignorance of the unfairness]. Intention may be inferred from objective manifestations that indicate that the person acted intentionally or from facts showing that a defendant acted with flagrant disregard of prudent and fair business practices to the extent that the defendant should be treated as having acted intentionally.

The remaining changes specifically relate to the enforcement provisions applicable to the AG’s office.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 17, 2015.

Decisions Based on Foreign Laws (Non-Family Law Proceedings)

HB 670 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Texas (Related Constitutional Amendment: HJR 32)

· Summary: HB 670 and HJR 32, filed by Rep. Dan Flynn (R - Canton), are similar to bills and related resolutions filed in 2011 and 2013 that failed to pass. HB 670 and HJR 32 would prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing “a ruling or decision” on “a foreign law,” or otherwise enforcing contract provisions that either require the application of a foreign law to a dispute or require parties to litigate their dispute in a forum outside of the United States if such provisions would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Texas Constitution.

· Bill Analysis for HB 670: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 670/HJR 32: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 670: On May 7, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 670 out of committee, without amendment, by a 5-3 vote (1 absent). The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Several individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 670 begins around the 1:31:40 mark.

· Status of HJR 32: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Numerous individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 32 begins around the 1:02:35 mark. On April 16, 2015, the committee voted on the bill but it failed to pass out of committee.

HB 828 - Application of Foreign or International Laws or Doctrines

· Summary: HB 828, filed by Rep. Bill Zedler (R - Arlington), would prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing “a ruling or decision” on either “a foreign or international law or doctrine” or “a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.” HB 828 would also require a court to “uphold and apply the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, federal laws, and the laws of this state, including the doctrine that is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and known as the church autonomy doctrine.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on February 23, 2015.

Defamation/Libel

SB 627 - Relating to Certain Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for a Libel Action (Companion: HB 1766)

· Summary: SB 627, filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston), would amend Chapter 73 of the CPRC (Defamation Mitigation Act) to add the “publication of allegations made by a third party regarding matters of public concern, regardless of the truth or falsity of the allegations” to the list of publications that are privileged and not grounds for a libel action. It would also add the following sections: “[t]his section does not abrogate or lessen any other defense, remedy, immunity, or privilege available under other constitutional, statutory, case, or common law or rule provisions” and “[t]his section shall be construed liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent fully.” The companion bill (HB 1766) was filed by Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi).

· Bill Analysis for SB 627: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 627: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 627: On April 22, 2015, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 627. The bill was subsequently sent to the House and referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence. In a formal meeting (i.e., not a public hearing), the committee unanimously voted the bill out of committee without amendments. The full House unanimously passed SB 627 on May 15^th. (Senate Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 2, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups testifying for and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 627 begins around the 1:35:55 mark. On April 15, 2015, State Affairs approved a committee substitute for SB 627, which sought to further clarify that a journalist accurately reporting on third party allegations regarding matters of public concern could use the accuracy of such reporting as a defense to libel.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 1766: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1766: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1766: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted a committee substitute for HB 1766 out of committee on April 23, 2015. The committee substitute makes the bill identical to the version adopted by the Senate. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups that either testified or registered a position on HB 1766: Witness List. TTLA, TLR, and the Texas Association of Broadcasters were among those who either testified or registered as being for the bill. No one testified against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1766 begins around the 2:45 mark.)

HB 4116 - Defense to Libel Actions

· Summary: HB 4116, filed by Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi), would amend section 73.005 of the CPRC by adding subsections (b) and (c), which would result in section 73.005 reading as follows:

Sec. 73.005. TRUTH A DEFENSE. (a) The truth of the statement in a publication on which a libel action is based is a defense to the action. (b) Subject to subsection (c), it is a defense to a libel action that the publication accurately reported the allegations of a third party regarding a matter of public concern. (c) Subsection (b) does not apply if: (i) the publication was made with actual malice; and (ii) the fact that the allegation was made is not itself a matter of public concern.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Elections

HB 25 - Elimination of Straight Ticket Voting for Judicial Offices (Companion: SB 1702)

· Summary: HB 25, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would eliminate straight ticket voting for judicial offices. HB 25 is virtually identical to SB 103 filed last session, which was voted out of committee but never was put to a vote before the full Senate. The companion bill, SB 1702, was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Fiscal Note for HB 25 / SB 1702: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 25: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Very few individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. Those who did testify (or registered a position on the bill) are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 25 begins around the 5:40 mark. HB 25 remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for SB 1702: Senate Research Center

· Status of SB 1702: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Most witnesses who testified about the bill opposed it. Those who did testify (or registered a position without testifying) are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Broadcast Archive. Testimony about SB 1702 begins around the 1:42:00 mark. SB 1702 remains pending.

HB 1444 - Elimination of Straight-Party Voting in Certain Counties

· Summary: HB 1444, filed by Rep. Jason Villalba (R - Dallas), would amend section 52.071 of the Election Code to eliminate straight ticket voting for judicial offices and local executive offices in counties with a population over 1,000,000.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 5, 2015.

HB 2754 - Filing Requirements for Candidates for Certain Judicial Offices

· Summary: HB 2754, filed by Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R - Southlake), would repeal sections 172.021(e) and (g) of the Elections Code, which would eliminate the petition requirement for certain judicial candidates. Specifically, under HB 2754, candidates for the following judicial offices would no longer have to include a petition with their application and fee to get on the general primary election ballot:

o Chief Justice or justice of the Supreme Court;

o Presiding Judge or judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals;

o Chief justice or justice of a court of appeals in an appellate district in which a county with a population of more than one million is wholly or partly situated;

o district or criminal district judge of a court in a judicial district wholly contained in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million;

o judge of a statutory county court in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million; and

o justice of the peace in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million.

A similar (though not identical) bill (HB 3880 Bill Analysis) was filed by Rep. Craig Goldman (R - Fort Worth). A public hearing was held in front of Elections at the same time as HB 2754. The committee voted HB 3880 out of committee on April 16, 2015 without amendment. It was passed by the full House (135-4) on May 8^th: Status of HB 3880.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16, 2015, Elections voted HB 2754 out of committee (by a 6-0 vote, with one absent) without amendments. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Those who testified are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2754 begins around the 3:14:00 mark.)

Evictions

HB 3364 - Appeals of Eviction Suit Judgments

· Summary: HB 3364, filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston), would amend section 24.007 of the Property Code to prohibit appeals of county court judgments in eviction suits on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only. HB 3364 would add back in to section 24.007(a) the same language that was removed from the statute in 2011. The bill would also repeal section 24.007(b), which was enacted in 2011 and authorizes appeals of final judgments of a county court, statutory county court, statutory probate court, or district court in an eviction suit.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On May 12, 2015, HB 3664 was unanimously passed by the full House. (Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015 and unanimously voted it out of committee, without amendment, on April 29^th. No witnesses testified on HB 3364; however, a few witnesses registered as being for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3364 begins around the 3:48:15 mark.)

Family Law

HB 562 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Proceeding involving Marriage, a Suit for Dissolution of a Marriage/Affecting Parent-Child Relationship (Companion: SB 531)

· Summary: The committee substitute for the original version of HB 562, filed by Rep. Jeff Leach (R - Plano), would prohibit a court or arbitrator in a family law matter from making a ruling or decision based on a foreign law if the application of that law would be “contrary to the public policy of [Texas].” Under the bill, the application of a law would be contrary to public policy if it would: (1) violate a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution; (2) violate a fundamental right guaranteed by the Texas constitution; (3) violate good morals or natural justice; or (4) be prejudicial to the general interests of the citizens of Texas. The companion bill to the original version of HB 562 (SB 531) was filed by Sen. Donna Campbell (R - New Braunfels). SB 531 is similar to HB 899, which is summarized below.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status for HB 562: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 562, as amended, out of committee by a 7-2 vote. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Numerous individuals either testified for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 562 begins around the 1:59:20 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 531: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 531: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status for SB 531: State Affairs conducted a hearing on the bill on May 4, 2015. Numerous individuals and groups either testified or registered a position on SB 531. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about SB 531 begins around the 2:14:10 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 899 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Certain Family Law Proceedings

· Summary: Like HB 670, HB 899, filed by Rep. Pat Fallon (R - Little Elm), is similar to failed bills filed in prior sessions that would prohibit a court or arbitrator in suits involving the dissolution of a marriage from making a ruling or decision based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or a Texas statute.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 899 was scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, the bill was pulled so no action was taken.

SB 1090 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in a Marriage/Divorce Proceeding or a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (Companion Bill: HB 3943)

· Summary: SB 1090, filed by Sen. Bob Hall (R - Rockwall), is similar to HB 562 (discussed above). The primary difference between SB 1090 and HB 562 is that SB 1090 would amend the Family Code to strictly prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing a decision on a foreign law and from enforcing a contract provision involving a marriage or parent-child relationship that is based on a foreign law, regardless of whether the provision is substantive or procedural (i.e., forum selection or governing law clauses). SB 1090 does not limit the prohibition to only those instances in which the application of the foreign law violates a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or a Texas statute. The companion bill, HB 3943, was filed by Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R - Irving).

· Status of SB 1090: Referred to State Affairs on March 16, 2015.

HB 1195 - Disclosure by an Attorney Before Accepting Representation in a Marriage Dissolution Proceeding

· Summary: HB 1195, filed by Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R - Houston), would require an attorney to disclose certain information to a prospective client before agreeing to represent that client in a divorce proceeding. More specifically, HB 1195 would amend the Family Code to require: (1) the attorney to provide a prospective client with a disclosure form promulgated by the State Bar of Texas (SBOT); and (2) the client to acknowledge in writing that the client has received and understands the disclosure. The disclosure must include information about arbitration, mediation, collaborative law, and alternatives to retaining an attorney for the dissolution of a marriage, as well as any other information that the SBOT may require. HB 1195 is essentially the same bill that Rep. Bohac filed in 2013 (HB 3470), which died in committee.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: The committee on Juvenile Justice & Family Issues voted HB 1195 out of committee (without amendments) on April 8^th and sent it to Calendars on April 14^th. (Committee History: The committee had conducted a public hearing on March 25, 2015. A representative of the Texas Family Law Foundation testified in opposition to HB 1195. No other witnesses testified, but several individuals registered their position on the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1195 begins around the 22:35:00 mark.)

Governmental Immunity

HB 2375 - Liability of a Governmental Unit for Personal Injury and Death Caused by the Governmental Unit’s Negligence

· Summary: HB 2375, filed by Rep. Harold Dutton, Jr. (D - Houston), would amend section 101.021(2) of the CPRC and waive immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) for acts of employees that cause personal injury or death due to “the negligence of the governmental unit” if the governmental unit would otherwise be liable if it were a private person. Under HB 2375, negligence arising from “a condition or use of tangible personal or real property” would be eliminated from the TTCA.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

SB 1600 - Limit on Award of Attorney's Fees in Certain Proceedings against the State or State Agency (Companion: HB 3641)

· Summary: SB 1600, filed by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R - Brenham), would amend the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA) and limit the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in cases seeking declaratory relief against the state or a state agency to an amount “not to exceed to exceed $250,000.” The companion bill, HB 3641, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo),

· Bill Analysis for SB 1600: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB1600: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1600: On April 29^th, by a 7-1 vote, State Affairs voted SB 1600 out of committee. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 20, 2015. Several witnesses registered a position on the bill. TTLA and the Texas NAACP were among those organizations registering their opposition to the bill while TLR and the Texas Conservative Coalition registered as being in favor of the bill. A representative from the Attorney General’s Office was the only testifying witness. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1600 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1600 begins around the 32:20 mark.

· Fiscal Note for HB 3641: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 3641: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Only a representative from the Attorney General’s Office testified on HB 3641. A representative of TLR registered as being for the bill while TTLA registered as being opposed to the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3641 begins around the 3:55:20 mark. The bill was left pending.

Health Care Liability

HB 956 - Scope of a Health Care Liability Claim

· Summary: HB 956, filed by Rep. Chris Turner (D - Arlington/Grand Prairie), is similar to the bill filed by Rep. Turner that failed to pass in 2013 (i.e., HB 2644). It is the legislative response to a series of Supreme Court cases addressing the scope of “health care liability claims” under the Texas Medical Liability Act, including Texas West Oaks Hospital, L.P. v. Williams. Specifically, HB 956 would amend the terms “claimant” and “health care liability claim” in Chapter 74 of the CPRC in an effort to “clarify” the meaning of those terms. Specifically, the term “claimant” would mean a “patient, including a deceased patient’s estate”, instead of “person, including a decedent’s estate.” The term “claimant” would include “both the patient and the party seeking recovery of damages” in cases in which “a party seeks recovery of damages related to injury of another person who is a patient, or other harm to the patient.” The bill would also amend the definition of “health care liability claim” to specify that such claims arise from “treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety directly related to health care…” [emphasis added] and that the term “does not include claims arising from an injury to or death of a person who is not a patient, including employment and premises liability claims.”

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 956 was scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, the bill was pulled so no action was taken.

HB 1403 - Defining Health Care Liability Claim for Purposes of Certain Claims

· Summary: HB 1403, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would amend the definition of “health care liability claim” in Chapter 74 of the CPRC to not include a personal injury claim filed against an employer by an employee not covered by worker’s compensation insurance or the employee’s surviving spouse or heir. [Note: The committee substitute for HB 1403 that was adopted by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee would also require the expert report required under 74.351(a) to “address at least one theory of direct liability asserted against each physician or health care provider against whom a theory of direct liability is asserted.” However, the report requirement was subsequently removed from the bill via a floor amendment.]

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On May 13, 2015, the full House passed HB 1403 by a 141-1 vote. (Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted a committee substitute for HB 1403 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either for or against the bill. Representatives from TLR and the Texas Nurses Association testified for HB 1403. TTLA testified against the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 1403 begins around the 11:10:45 mark.)

Insurance Claims

SB 1166 - Recovery of Damages for Delayed Payment of Certain Insurance Claims

· Summary: SB 1166, filed by Sen. Van Taylor (R - Plano), would amend the “Prompt Payment of Claims” section of the Insurance Code to provide additional instances in which an insurer would not be liable for damages due to a delay in paying on a first party claim. Under SB 1166, the damages-for-delay provisions would not apply if: (1) the amount of damages awarded as a result of arbitration or litigation is less than 80 percent of a settlement offer (as defined by section 42.001 of the CPRC) made by an insurer and rejected by the claimant; (2) a claimant fails to provide an affidavit of damages as defined by SB 1166; or (3) the insurer pays to the claimant the amount of damages awarded as a result of an appraisal no later than the 15th business day after the date the damages are awarded in the appraisal.

The “affidavit of damages” provisions in SB 1166 would require a claimant to provide an insurer with an affidavit containing the dollar amount of all damages the claimant intends to seek in a suit no later than the 30th day before the date the claimant commences the suit against the insurer. However, if a claimant ultimately seeks damages that exceed the amount in the claimant’s affidavit, the claimant would be required to provide the insurer with written notice of the excess amount by affidavit no later than the 15th day before the date the claimant files a pleading seeking the excess amount.

Under SB 1166, a claimant could also file a claim seeking damages as a “small claims case” (as provided by section 27.060 of the Government Code) if the disputed amount of the insurance claim does not exceed the maximum amount allowed for a small claims case as determined by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the total amount awarded in an action filed as a small claims case may not exceed two times the disputed amount of the claim. If a suit seeking damages is filed as a small claims case as provided by the Government Code, an insurer may elect to waive the insurer’s right to appeal no later than the 15th day after the date the suit is filed against the insurer.

Finally, SB 1166 would also amend section 542.060 of the Insurance Code to modify the damages provisions of that section. In addition to paying the amount of the claim, an insurer would be liable for interest only on the “disputed amount” of the claim, for reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, and, in small claims cases, for court costs if the insurer did not waive its right to appeal any judgment entered in the small claims case. SB 1166 would also add the following to the damages section of the “Prompt Payment of Claims” section of the Insurance Code: (1) the court will determine the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, but the amount of attorney’s fees must bear a reasonable relationship to the damages awarded by the trier of fact based on the disputed amount of the claim; (2) any interest awarded would begin to accrue on the date the claimant provided the affidavit of damages; and (3) an attorney cannot share attorney’s fees awarded with the claimant.

· Bill Status: Referred to Business & Commerce on March 17, 2015.

HB 3646 - Insurance Claims and Certain Prohibited Acts and Practices Relating to the Business of Insurance (Companion: SB 1628)

· Summary: HB 3646, filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo), would amend various sections of the Insurance Code to do, among other things, the following:

o The definition of “person” would no longer include an adjuster or any third-party individual or entity “engaged by an insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.”

o An insurer would be “solely responsible” for any “unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance” committed by an individual employed by the insurer as an adjuster or a third-party individual or entity engaged by the insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.

o An insured seeking damages in an action against an insurer would be required to provide written notice to the insurer at least 61 days prior to filing suit that includes a sworn statement containing the following information: (1) the specific damage items and the amount alleged to be owed by the insurer; (2) the amount of attorney’s fees the insured reasonably incurred in asserting the claim against the insurer; and (3) the amount that the insured will accept in full and final satisfaction of the claim. If the sworn statement included damage amounts sought by the insured not previously submitted to the insurer, the notice must contain: (1) a sworn statement signed by the insured stating the specific damage items, the amount alleged to be owed by the insured, and the reason the damage items were not previously submitted to the insurer; (2) copies of reports, estimates, photographs, and other items reasonably supporting the insured ’s additional damage items; (3) a statement that the insured will cooperate in allowing the insurer to inspect the insured property for purposes of investigating the additional damage items; (4) the amount of attorney’s fees the insured reasonably incurred in asserting the claim against the insurer; and (5) a stated amount that the insured will accept in full and final satisfaction of the claim.

o Establish a requirement in which a failure to provide requisite notice prior to filing suit would, in certain circumstances, be subject to dismissal.

o Establish a 2-year statute of limitations for providing notice to an insurer of certain claims for damages to or loss of real property or tangible personal property.

The companion bill, SB 1628, was filed by Sen. Larry Taylor (R - Friendswood).

· Fiscal Note for HB 3646: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 3646: Insurance conducted a public hearing on April 22, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups registered to testify for HB 3646, but the witness list has yet to be posted. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 3646 begins around the 3:27:55 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for SB 1628: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1628: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1628: On April 30^th, the full Senate passed SB 1628 by a 21-10 vote. It was referred to Insurance (House) on May 4^th. (Senate Committee History: Business & Commerce voted a committee substitute for SB 1628 out of committee on April 20, 2015. The committee conducted its first public hearing on SB 1628 on March 31, 2015. Many witnesses either testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. Most of those who testified were against the bill; most who registered a position without testifying supported the bill. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1628 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1628 begins around the 1:50:40 mark.

A public hearing on the committee substitute for SB 1628 was conducted on April 14, 2015. Much like the first hearing, many witnesses either testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1628 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1628 begins around the 6:20 mark.)

HB 3697 - Texas Department of Insurance Study of Claims Data and Recovery of Attorney's Fees in First Party Claims

· Summary: HB 3697, filed by Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R - Odessa), would section 542.062 of the Insurance Code and limit the recovery of attorney's fees in first party insurance claims to an amount equal to the recoverable economic damages. Under HB 3697, the Department of Insurance would be required to research and evaluate claims data made in the past five years to compare and establish an understanding between first party claims made, legal actions filed by claimants to recover damages, and complaints made by claimants to the Department, if any.

· Bill Status: Referred to Insurance on March 19, 2015.

HB 3822 - Recovery under Uninsured/Underinsured Insurance Coverage (Companion: HB 3533)

· Summary: HB 3822, filed by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D - Houston), would amend the Insurance Code by adding provisions that prohibit an insurer from requiring, as a prerequisite to asserting an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim, a judgment or other legal determination establishing the other motorist's liability or uninsured/underinsured status. Further, a judgment or other legal determination would not be a prerequisite to asserting a claim for unfair/deceptive acts or practices or for violations of the prompt payment of claims provisions of the Insurance Code. Under HB 3822, an insurer would be required to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim once liability and damages have become reasonably clear.

Also, under HB 3822, prejudgment interest would begin to accrue on the earlier of: (1) the 180th day after the date the claimant notifies the insurer of the claim; or (2) the date on which suit is filed against the insurer to recover uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. Further, for purposes of recovering attorney's fees under section 38.002 of the CPRC, a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage would be considered presented when the insurer receives notice of the claim.

The companion bill, HB 3533, was filed by Rep. Sergio Munoz, Jr. (D - Mission).

· Status of HB 3822: Referred to Insurance on March 23, 2015.

· Status of HB 3533: Referred to Insurance on March 18, 2015.

Judicial Selection

HB 2088 - Interim Study Regarding the Method by Which Judges and Justices are Selected

· Summary: HB 2088, filed by Rep. Justin Rodriguez (D - San Antonio), would create a joint interim committee on judicial selection (consisting a five (5) members from both the House and Senate) to study and review the method by which statutory county court, district and appellate justices/judges are selected for office. The joint committee would be required to report its findings and recommendation to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the House by January 6, 2017. HB 2088 is similar to HB 2772 that passed last session and was signed by Governor; however, the joint committee never met and a report was never generated.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 29^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 2088 out of committee, but it failed to pass in the House on May 14^th. The committee had conducted a public hearing on the bill on April 21, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups that either testified or registered a position on HB 2088: Witness List. No one testified against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2088 begins around the 1:35:45 mark.

Judiciary/Court Administration

HB 1 / SB 2 - Appropriations Bills (Appellate Court Budget Only)

· Summary/Status: On April 1, 2015, the House voted (141-5) to pass its budget, which appropriated $793 million for the judiciary during the next biennium and included the above-referenced appropriations as recommended by the Appropriations Committee: CSHB 1 (the section of CSHB 1 related to the judiciary is located at pp. 485-528). The $793 million for the judiciary is $32 million more than proposed in the original budget and an almost 4% increase over the last biennium. The House-approved budget includes funding for the following:

· Basic Civil Legal Services – The Supreme Court would receive $61.4 million over the next biennium for basic civil legal services, of which $10 million would be dedicated for legal aid for sexual assault victims and $1.75 million for veterans.

· EFileTexas.gov – The Office of Court Administration (OCA) would receive $28.8 million for the biennium for EFileTexas.gov, which would be funded by $14.4 million collected each year from the $20 e-filing fee that litigants pay when they file civil lawsuits. OCA would also receive in excess of $900,000 each fiscal year to establish four new child protection courts.

· “Similar Funding for Same Size Courts” Block Grant – The intermediate appellate courts would receive the additional $6.4 million dollars needed to fund the remaining half of the “similar funding for same size courts” block grant.

On April 9^th, the Senate Finance Committee considered the House’s budget and approved (unanimously) a committee substitute that mirrored the Senate’s version of the budget. The Senate’s version of the budget was approved by the full Senate on April 14^th. A conference committee has been appointed to reconcile the differences between the two budgets. Deliberations are ongoing.

The preliminary House and Senate budgets for 2016 and 2017 included slight funding cuts for the judiciary. As originally filed, the House would appropriate $761.5 million to the judiciary for the biennium, a 0.3 percent decrease compared with the last budget. The Senate would give the judiciary $753.1 million, a 1.4 percent decrease.

The Supreme Court asked for additional funds in order to do, among other things, the following: (1) provide raises for staff attorneys, non-legal staff and clerks, as well as provide an increase in the travel budget for Supreme Court committees; and (2) provide legal services for veterans. The intermediate appellate courts jointly requested an additional $6.4 million dollars to fulfill the remaining half of their request for funds under the “similar funding for same size courts” model. [Note: Last session, the 83^rd Legislature passed a budget that included additional funding for intermediate appellate courts that represented half of the funding originally requested by the courts under the “similar funding for same size courts” model. The additional funds were used, in part, to provide targeted salary increases for legal and non-legal staff at the courts to restore some salaries and staff positions, as well as operating costs that were cut in previous fiscal years.] Further, in addition to the similar-funding-for-same-size-courts funds, the Austin and Fort Worth courts requested funds to hire more staff attorneys to help manage their respective caseloads.

Following the recommendations of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Articles I, IV & V, the full Appropriations Committee adopted the Subcommittee's Recommendations that included (1) additional funds for the Supreme Court to provide raises for legal staff and to provide basic civil legal services to veterans and sexual assault victims and (2) the intermediate appellate courts’ request for the additional $6.4 million dollars needed to fund the remaining half of the “similar funding for same size courts” block grant. A Senate Finance subcommittee has also accepted the Supreme Court’s and intermediate appellate courts’ request for these additional funds.

SB 64 - Appellate Court Procedures and Deadlines in Civil Actions

· Summary: SB 64, which is also known as the “Appellate Court Accountability Act”, was filed by Sen. Don Huffines (R – Dallas). SB 64 would establish deadlines for the Supreme Court and intermediate courts of appeals to act on civil appeals.

Supreme Court Deadlines

SB 64 would give the Supreme Court ninety (90) days from the date of filing to deny a petition for review if the court does not request a response and one hundred eighty (180) days if it does not request briefing. The Court would be required to grant or deny the petition no later than three hundred (300) days after the petition is filed if the Court requests briefing. If the Court determined that the issues presented in a petition were related to issues in another case for which a petition has been granted and a decision pending, it could place the petition on hold until the Court decided the prior case. At such time, the Court would be required to publish the names of the parties to the petitions and the issues the Court has determined to be related. Once a decision has been issued in the case for which a petition was placed on hold, the Court would have thirty (30) days to grant or deny the petition.

The bill would also require the Supreme Court to issue a decision for all cases in which the Court grants a petition during the ”term of court” (i.e., the State’s fiscal year) in which the petition for review was granted. If a petition is granted in June or later, the Court could carry the case into the next term under “extraordinary circumstances” but must explain the nature of the “extraordinary circumstances” in the order granting the petition. Any case carried over would have to be decided no later than December 31^st of the next term.

SB 64 would also require the Court to adopt written procedures that allocate responsibilities to individual justices. The chief justice would be required to enforce the procedures and deadlines against individual justices. Such enforcement options would include prohibiting a justice from participating in future oral arguments, reassigning opinions, prohibiting a justice from participating in a new case, and referring a justice to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Intermediate Appellate Court Deadlines

SB 64 would require the courts of appeals to announce whether oral argument has been granted in a civil appeal no later than sixty (60) days after the “final brief” is filed. Oral argument must be held no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the date the final brief has been filed, and the court must issue its decision no later than ninety (90) days after oral argument (if granted) or the date the court announces that oral argument is denied.

The chief justice of each court of appeals would be required to enforce the deadlines in the same manner as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as submit a quarterly report to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding the court’s compliance with the deadlines. If a court of appeals fails to comply, the Chief Justice may prohibit the filing of additional appeals in that court and order the transfer of appeals to other courts. If a court of appeals was prohibited from accepting new appeals, justices of that court would not be credited with state service for the time period during which the court would be prohibit from accepting appeals, and the Legislative Budget Board and Governor would be required to reduce the non-complying court’s budget and shift money to courts receiving transfers. By January 31^st of each year, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would be required to submit a compliance report with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 26, 2015.

SB 443 - Study and Recommendations on Consolidating the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court

· Summary: SB 443, filed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D - Austin), would require the Judicial Council to study and make recommendations as to whether the CCA and the Supreme Court should be consolidated or whether one court should be abolished and its functions and jurisdiction transferred to the other court.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on February 9, 2015.

SB 455 - Creation of a Special Three-Judge District Court (Companion: HB 1091)

· Summary: SB 455, filed by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R - Conroe), would amend the Government Code to create a procedural mechanism that would allow the Attorney General to petition the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the formation of a special three-judge panel to hear certain types of cases in which the State of Texas or an officer or agency of the State is a defendant. Proceedings in front of a three-judge panel would be mandatory in cases involving a claim that either (1) challenges the finances or operations of the public school system; or (2) involves the apportionment of districts for the Texas House, Texas Senate, U.S. Congress, State Board of Education, or the apportionment of state judicial districts. Three-judge panel proceedings would be discretionary in other cases in which the Attorney General certifies that the outcome of the case either (1) significantly impacts the finances of the State; (2) significantly alters the operations of important statewide policies or programs; or (3) is otherwise of exceptional statewide importance such that the case should not be decided by a single district judge. Under SB 455, the Chief Justice’s decision to either deny the AG’s petition or order that a discretionary proceeding be heard by a special three-judge district court would be considered final and not appealable; however, appeals “from an appealable interlocutory order of final judgment” of the three-judge court would be directly to the Supreme Court.

SB 455 provides that the three-judge district court would consist of the district judge to whom the case was assigned at the time the petition to the Chief Justice was submitted, a district judge chosen by the Chief Justice who has been elected by the voters of a county other than the county in which the case was filed, and a justice of a court of appeals chosen by the Chief Justice who has been elected by the voters of a judicial district other than the district in which the case was filed or in which the district judge chosen under the section sits. The three-judge court would be required to sit in the county in which the case was filed and would be subject to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; provided, however, that the Supreme Court may promulgate rules for the operation of the three-judge courts.

The companion bill, HB 1091, was filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston).

· Fiscal Note for SB 455: Legislative Budget Board

· Analysis for SB 455: Senator Research Center

· Status of SB 455: On May 4^th, the full Senate, by a 21-10 vote, passed SB 455 without amendment. It was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence (House) on May 5^th. (Senate Committee History: On April 28^th, State Affairs unanimously voted SB 455 out of committee and the full Senate, by a 21-10 vote, passed the bill without amendment. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 20, 2015. Several witnesses either testified or registered a position on the bill. The only witness who testified was a TTLA representative, who spoke in favor of the bill. TLR registered as being for the bill, while a representative of the NAACP and a Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund representative registered as being against SB 455. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 455 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 455 begins around the 22:55 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 1091: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1091: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1091: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted a committee substitute for HB 1091 out of committee (5-4 vote). (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Several witnesses testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. Most of those who testified or registered a position about the bill opposed it, including TTLA, the Texas Family Law Foundation, and TEX-ABOTA. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on HB 1091 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1091 begins around the 5:41:50 mark.)

SB 524 - Review of State Laws Requiring an Action or Proceeding to be Brought in Travis County or a Travis County Court (Companion: HB 1427)

· Summary: SB 524, filed by Sen. Brian Birdwell (R - Granbury) and Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D - McAllen), would create a commission to review Texas laws to identify each statute and state agency rule that requires an action or proceeding to be brought or considered in Travis County, a Travis County district or statutory county court, or the Third Court of Appeals. The commission would be required to make recommendations on whether the location of the action or proceeding in each statute or state agency rule serves a legitimate state purpose, other than the convenience of the state agency, that supersedes the interests of persons required to travel to Travis County to attend or participate in the action or proceeding or whether the identified statute or state agency rule should be revised to authorize an action or proceeding to be brought or considered in another Texas county. The companion bill, HB 1427, was filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo).

· Status of SB 524: Referred to Business & Commerce on February 18, 2015.

· Bill Analysis for HB 1427: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1427: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1427: HB 1427 was voted out of committee, without amendments, on April 2, 2015. (Committee History: General Investigating & Ethics conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2015. No one testified for, against, or on the bill. Only one person registered to take a position on the bill and it was a registration of support: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1427 begins around the 2:11:15 mark.)

SB 967 - Authority of a District Clerk to Collect Fees for Providing Electronic Copies of Certain Court Records

· Summary: SB 967, filed by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R - Houston), would amend section 51.318 of the Government Code to prohibit a district clerk from charging a fee for noncertified electronic copies of any electronic document on file or of record in the clerk’s office, unless the copy is provided in a bulk distribution.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on March 10, 2015.

SB 1116 - Notices or Documents Sent by Mail or Email by a Court, Court Clerk, or Judge (Companion: HB 2822)

· Summary: SB 1116, filed by Sen. Royce West (D - Dallas), would amend the Government Code to authorize a “court, justice, judge, magistrate, or clerk” to send any notice or document using mail or electronic mail and would apply to all civil and criminal statutes requiring delivery of a notice or document. However, authorized methods of delivery of electronic mail would not include facsimiles, instant messaging, messages on a social network website (including Facebook and Twitter), telegraphs, telephone messages, text messages, videoconferencing, voice messages, or webcams. The companion bill, HB 2822, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo).

· Bill Analysis for SB 1116: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1116: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1116: On April 30^th, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 1116. On May 4^th, the bill was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence in the House, who promptly voted it out of committee (unanimously and without amendment) on May 7^th. The full House unanimously passed SB 1116 on May 15^th. (Senate Committee History: State Affairs unanimously voted a committee substitute for SB 1116 out of committee on April 22, 2015. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 16, 2015. Only three witnesses testified on SB 1116 (one in support of the bill; two simply “on” the bill), while several registered support for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1116 begins around the 55:30 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 2822: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 2822: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2822: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 2822 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Only one witness testified on HB 2822, while several registered support for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 2822 begins around the 11:26:10 mark.)

SB 1970 - Increase of Statewide Electronic Filing Fees

· Summary: SB 1970, filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston), would raise the statewide electronic filing system fund fee collected by various courts from $20 to $30.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 28^th, State Affairs voted SB 1970 out of committee by an 8-1 vote. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 23, 2015. A few witnesses appeared to testify or register a position on the bill. The only witness who testified for the bill was a single probate court judge. A representative of the Family Law Foundation registered as being opposed to SB 1970. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1970 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1970 begins around the 34:45 mark.

HB 427/HJR 49 - Creation of Texas Redistricting Commission

· Summary: HB 427 and HJR 49, filed by Rep. Donna Howard (D – Austin), would create the Texas Redistricting Commission (“TRC”), which would be responsible for adopting redistricting plans for the election of the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Senate, and the members of the United States House of Representatives elected from the state of Texas following each federal census. The TRC would also be responsible for reapportioning judicial districts in the event the Judicial Districts Board fails to reapportion the districts.

· Status of HB 427: Referred to Redistricting on February 16, 2015.

· Status of HJR 49: Referred to Redistricting on February 26, 2015.

HB 1122 - Number of Jurors Required in Certain Civil Cases Pending in Statutory County Court (Companion: SB 824)

· Summary: HB 1122, filed by Rep. Travis Clardy (R - Nacogdoches), would amend the Government Code to require that civil cases pending in a statutory county court in which the amount in controversy is $200,000 or more be tried before a jury of twelve (12) members. The bill would also require that the drawing of jury panels, the selection of jurors, and the related practice and procedure conform to that prescribed by law for district courts in the county where the statutory county court is located. The companion bill (SB 824) was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1122: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1122: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1122: On March 17^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously approved a committee substitute that would authorize a commissioners court to reduce the jurisdiction of the county court to $200,000 in those counties in which the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200,000. The committee substitute for HB 1122 (CSHB 1122) has been sent to the Local & Consent Calendar. (Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1122 begins around the 2:00 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 824: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 824: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 824: On April 15^th, the full Senate passed SB 824. The bill was sent to the House and referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 27^th and was considered in a formal meeting of the committee on May 7^th. It was subsequently voted out of committee, without amendment, by an 8-1 vote. (Senate Committee History: On March 31, 2015, a committee substitute was voted unanimously out of State Affairs and recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. Like the House version, the committee substitute that would authorize a commissioners court to reduce the jurisdiction of the county court to $200,000 in those counties in which the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200,000, thus negating the need to use a twelve-person jury. (Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 23, 2015. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 824 begins around the 36:44 mark.)

HB 1416 - Judicial Recusal Based on Political Contributions

· Summary: HB 1416, authored by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would require justices on the Supreme Court and judges on the CCA (but apparently not intermediate appellate court justices) to “recuse himself or herself from any case in which the justice or judge has in the preceding four years accepted political contributions…in a total amount of $2,500 or more” from “(1) a party to the case, (2) attorney of record in the case, (3) the law firm of an attorney of record in the case, (4) the managing agent of a party to the case, (5) a member of the board of directors of a party to the case, or (6) a general-purpose committee…that is established or administered by a person who is a party to the case.” Similar legislation was filed in 2009, 2011, and 2013, all of which died in committee.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 9, 2015.

HB 1603 - Creation of the Chancery Court and Court of Chancery Appeals to Hear Certain Cases

· Summary: HB 1603, filed by Rep. Jason Villalba (R - Dallas), would create a statewide specialized civil trial court and an appellate court to hear certain business-related litigation cases, such as actions against businesses, accusations of wrongdoing by businesses or their members, disputes between businesses, violations of Business Organizations Code, Finance Code, and Business & Commerce Code. This court would have no jurisdiction over governmental entities (absent the government entity invoking or consenting to jurisdiction) or personal injury cases unless agreed to by the parties and the court. Some of the other notable components of the bill are:

o The chancery court would be composed of seven (7) judges who are appointed by the governor for staggered six (6) year terms. The judges would be selected from a list of qualified candidates compiled by a bipartisan advisory council (Chancery Court Nominations Advisory Council) and would be required to have at least 10 years of experience in complex business law.

o The court clerk would be located in Travis County, but individual judges would be based in the county seat of their respective counties.

o Current venue rules would apply, but cases could be heard in an agreed-upon county or where the court may decide to be more convenient or necessary.

o There would be a removal procedure for cases filed in a district court.

o The Courts of Chancery Appeals, which would handle appeals from the chancery trial court, would be composed of seven (7) justices from current court of appeals justices that are appointed by the governor based on a list of qualified candidates compiled by the advisory council. Justices would serve six (6) year terms and would hear cases in panels of three (3) randomly-selected justices. Appeals from the CCA would go to the Supreme Court.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16^th, Business & Industry voted HB 1603 out of committee (by a 4-3 vote). The bill’s author had originally intended to amend the bill once it reaches the House floor; however, the committee held another public meeting on April 21^st and adopted the amended bill. Under the amendments, the bill would (1) exempt certain types of cases from the chancery court’s subject matter jurisdiction (e.g., cases brought under the Estates Code, Family Code, the DTPA, and Title 9 (Trusts) of the Property Code) and (2) increase the minimum amount in controversy to $10 million dollars for certain types of chancery court cases. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill. Those testifying in support of HB 1603 included former Chief Justice Tom Phillips and a representative from the Texas Business Law Foundation. Those testifying against the bill included representatives from TTLA, TADC, and TEX-ABOTA. Here is a complete list of those who testified or otherwise registered a position on the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1603 begins around the 2:28:30 mark.) Note: After the initial public hearing, the SBOT granted the requests of the Litigation Section and Judicial Section to oppose HB 1603. The Business Law Section was given permission to support the bill.

HB 1656 - Public Financing of Campaigns for Appellate Judicial Offices

· Summary: HB 1656, filed by Rep. Rafael Anchia (D - Dallas), is essentially the same bill that Rep. Anchia filed in 2013 (HB 1126) and died in committee. HB 1656 would affect the manner in which appellate justice/judge campaigns are financed by providing a public financing option for eligible candidates. Specifically, under HB 1656, a candidate could request public financing by filing a petition signed by a specific number of qualified voters who also make a minimum contribution to the candidate’s campaign. Once the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) declares that a candidate has met the eligibility standards, the candidate could begin receiving distributions from the fund and could no longer accept contributions from private contributors or benefit from the direct campaign expenditures on the candidate’s behalf. The fund would be composed of any amounts appropriated or gifted, as well as by civil penalties levied by the TEC.

· Bill Status: Referred to Elections on March 9, 2015.

HB 2730 - Creation of Fifteenth District Court of Appeals

· Summary: HB 2370, filed by Rep. Phil Stephenson (R - Rosenberg), would create the Fifteenth District Court of Appeals, which would sit in Edinburg and be composed of Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties. The court would consist of three (3) justices. Under HB 2370, the number of justices on the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals would be reduced to three (3) justices.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On May 7^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 2730 out of committee, without amendment, by a 5-3 vote (1 absent). The committee conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were several individuals and groups registered to testify for, on, or against HB 2730: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2730 begins around the 1:04:00 mark.

HB 3426 - Jurisdiction of Statutory County Courts at Law

· Summary: HB 3426, filed by Rep. Gilbert Pena (R - Pasadena), would amend section 25.0003(c)(1) of the Government Code and modify the jurisdiction of statutory county courts at law in the following manner:

“civil cases in which the matter in controversy exceeds $500 but does not exceed $200,000, excluding interest [, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney ’s fees and costs, as alleged on the face of the petition].”

In other words, under HB 3426, statutory or punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs would be included in determining the amount in controversy for purposes of determining jurisdiction.

· Bill Status: HB 3426 had been scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, no action was taken by the committee as the author had asked that the hearing be rescheduled.

HB 3430 - Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

· Summary: HB 3430, filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston), would amend Chapter 22 of the Government Code and essentially require that the Supreme Court be given an opportunity to review any constitutional rulings by the Court of Criminal Appeals before the rulings became final and effective. More specifically, HB 3430 would add the following sections 22.1025 and 22.002(f) to the Government Code:

Sec. 22.1025: “(a) Any ruling by the court of criminal appeals that any statute, rule, or procedure violates either the state or federal constitutions shall not be final and shall have no effect until the later of: (1) 60 days following the ruling; or (2) The denial or dismissal of a petition filed in the supreme court pursuant to Section 22.002(f) of the Government Code.”

Section 22.002(f): “Whenever the court of criminal appeals determines that a statute, rule, or procedure is unconstitutional, the supreme court, on the petition of the attorney general or a district or county attorney, has original civil jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto and mandamus to correct any error in the court of criminal appeals ’ determination.” Section 22.002(f) would apply regardless of whether (1) the CCA rules under the Texas Constitution, U.S. Constitution, or both; (2) the constitutional ruling by the CCA is characterized as criminal or civil; or (3) the ruling by the CCA is characterized as final or non-final.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Former Chief Justice Tom Phillips was one of the individuals who testified in support of HB 3430. A representative for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association testified against the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3430 begins around the 2:16:30 mark. The bill was left pending.

HJR 62 - Constitutional Amendment Regarding the Recording and Publication of Certain Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals Proceedings (Related Bill: HB 3932)

· Summary: HJR 62, filed by Rep. Rep. Terry Canales (D- Edinburg), would amend the Texas Constitution and require the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals to make a video recording (or other electronic visual and audio recording) of each oral argument, proceeding, and open meeting of each court and post the recording on each court’s website. Rep. Canales subsequently filed HB 3932 to correct some of the issues raised by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence during the March 10^th hearing on HJR 62 (discussed below).

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HJR 62: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Although no witnesses testified against the concept, there was much discussion about the scope of the resolution (e.g., whether “proceedings” would encompass internal conferences, etc.) and whether a constitutional amendment was the correct vehicle to impose the recording requirement. The Supreme Court already records oral argument and other public meetings and posts the recordings on its website, so much of the discussion centered around the CCA. For those interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 62 begins around the 1:09 mark. HJR 62 remains pending.

· Status of HB 3932: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

HJR 81 - Constitutional Amendment to Change the Terms of District Court Judges to Six Years

· Summary: HJR 81, filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would increase the terms of district court judges from four years to six years. A similar bill was filed in 2013, but failed to get out of committee.

HJR 90 - Constitutional Amendment to Abolish the Court of Criminal Appeals

· Summary: HJR 90, also filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would abolish the CCA and give jurisdiction of criminal appeals to the Supreme Court. Similar legislation was filed in 2009, 2011, and 2013, each of which died in committee. Under HJR 90, death penalty cases would be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, while all other criminal cases would go through the court of appeals. In non-death penalty cases that make it to the Supreme Court, the justices would sit in panels of three. The Supreme Court would hear death penalty cases en banc.

· Status of HJR 90: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on May 5, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Witness List. Testimony about HJR 90 begins around the 2:28:25 mark. The resolution was left pending.

Lawsuit Financing/Lending

HB 3454 - Assignment of Rights in an Individual's Legal Claim

· Summary: HB 3454, filed by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D - Houston), seeks to regulate “civil justice funding” transactions and “civil justice funding companies,” and would permit a civil justice funding company to enter into a “non-recourse transaction in which [the] civil justice funding company purchases, and a consumer assigns to the company, a contingent right to receive an amount of the potential proceeds of a settlement, judgment, award, or verdict obtained in the consumer’s legal claim” provided that the transaction is documented via a written contract that complies with the requirements set forth in the statute. The bill specifies that a civil justice funding transaction may not be considered a loan or subject to state laws governing loans (including limits on interest rates). A similar bill (HB 1254) was filed by Rep. Thompson in 2013, but it died in committee.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3454 begins around the 5:15 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 3218 - Litigation Finance Agreements

· Summary: HB 3218, filed by Rep. Anna Hernandez (D - Houston), would add Chapter 354 to the Finance Code and establish statutory requirements for “litigation financing agreements.” Under HB 3218, a litigation financing agreement would be defined as an agreement under which “money is provided to or on behalf of a consumer by a litigation financing company for a purpose other than prosecuting the consumer’s legal claim” and “the repayment of the money is in accordance with a litigation financing transaction the terms of which are included as part of the litigation financing agreement.”

HB 3218 would require litigation financing agreements to: (1) be in writing; (2) contain the initials of the consumer on each page; and (3) be “otherwise complete” when presented to the consumer for signature. Other required terms and disclosures, which must be on the front page of the agreement under appropriate headings, would include the following: (1) the funded amount to be paid to the consumer by the litigation financing company; (2) an itemization of one-time charges; (3) the total amount to be assigned by the consumer to the company, including the funded amount and all charges; and (4) a payment schedule that: (a) includes the funded amount and charges; and (b) lists all dates and the amount due at the end of each 180-day period from the funding date until the due date of the maximum amount due to the company by the consumer to satisfy the amount owed under the agreement.

A similar bill (HB 1595) was voted out of committee last session, but was never voted on by the entire House.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Patent Infringement Claims

SB 1187 - Patent Infringement Claims (Companion: HB 3176)

· Summary: SB 1187, filed by Sen. Van Taylor (R - Plano), would add Chapter 2005 to the Business & Commerce Code and prohibit bad faith patent infringement claims. More specifically, SB 1187 would prohibit a person from sending a demand letter that makes, in bad faith, a claim of patent infringement against a Texas resident, and in connection with the claim: (1) files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement; (2) threatens to file a lawsuit if the alleged patent infringement is not resolved; or (3) makes a demand for compensation or damages or payment of a license fee based on the alleged patent infringement. For purposes of SB 1187, a person makes a claim of patent infringement in bad faith if: (1) the claim is objectively baseless, meaning that no reasonable litigant could reasonably expect success on the merits; and (2) the person making the claim knows or should have known that the claim is objectively baseless. However, a claim of patent infringement would be presumed to be made in good faith if the claim is made by a person who holds a certificate of authority issued by the Attorney General under Chapter 2005 or is a claim for relief arising under federal law.

SB 1187 would not create a private cause of action, but would authorize the Attorney General to enforce any violations of Chapter 2005. The bill would also create two information databases-- one for persons sending demand letters and another for the demand letters themselves, both of which would be maintained by the Secretary of State.

The companion bill, HB 3176, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo).

· Bill Analysis of SB 1187: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1187: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1187: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 9, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1187 begins around the 39:10:00 mark. A committee substitute was offered that deletes any criminal penalty for barratry, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

· Status of HB 3176: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on May 5, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, or against the bill. Here is a witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Witness List. Testimony about HB 3176 begins around the 5:09:40 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but it has yet to be posted. It is my understanding that the committee substitute would give the AG power to investigate demands made in bad faith. The bill was left pending.

SB 1457 - Bad Faith Patent Infringement Claims

· Summary: SB 1457, filed by Sen. Robert Nichols (R - Jacksonville), would amend the Business and Commerce Code by adding an additional subchapter to the DTPA entitled "Bad Faith Claims of Patent Infringement." Like SB 1187/HB 3176, the bill would prohibit bad faith claims of patent infringement. However, unlike SB 1187/HB 3176, SB 1457 would define a bad faith claim as one that includes an allegation of infringement and (a) falsely states that the sender has filed a lawsuit in connection with the claim; (b) the claim is objectively baseless; and (c) the communication is likely to materially mislead the recipient because it does not include the identity of the person asserting the claim, the patent that is alleged to have been infringed, and at least one product, service or activity that is alleged to infringe the patent. Under SB 1457, "objectively baseless" would mean that (a) the sender does not have a current right to license the patent or to enforce the patent; (b) the patent has been held invalid or unenforceable in a final judgment or administrative decision; or (c) the infringing activity occurred after the patent expired.

SB 1457 would authorize the Attorney General to bring an action if it believes that the prohibition against bad faith claims of patent infringement has been violated. The Attorney General could also seek injunctive relief and a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000 for each violation as well as reimbursement to the State of Texas of the “reasonable value of investigating and prosecuting a violation” and restitution to the victim for “legal and professional expenses related to the violation.”

The bill specifically states that it would not prohibit a person with rights to license and enforce a patent from notifying others of their ownership, offering it for license, notifying any person of infringement under federal law, or seeking compensation for past or present infringement or for a license to the patent. Finally, SB 1457 also provides that the knowing institution of a suit or claim for patent infringement that constitutes a bad faith claim of patent infringement under the DTPA would be a Class A misdemeanor.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 21, 2015, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 1457. It was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on May 5^th and a hearing has been scheduled for May 19^th at 2:00 p.m. or upon final recess/adjournment of the House. Here is the meeting notice: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast. (Senate Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 9, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1457 begins around the 39:10:00 mark. On April 15, 2015, the committee unanimously voted the committee substitute out of committee. The substitute deleted the criminal penalties for barratry.)

Probate Court Proceedings

SB 512 - Promulgation of Forms for Use in Probate Matters

· Summary: SB 512, filed by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D - Laredo), would require the Supreme Court to promulgate appropriate forms and instructions for the use of certain forms by individuals representing themselves in certain probate matters or making certain wills, including forms for use in: (1)Aa small estate affidavit proceeding under the Estates Code; (2) the probate of a will as a muniment of title under the Estates Code; and (3) the making of a will for married and unmarried individuals. A similar, though not identical, bill (HB 2196) has been filed in the House by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 512: On March 24, 2015, the full Senate passed SB 512 by a 30-1 vote. SB 512 was sent to the House and referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence, which had scheduled the bill for public hearing on May 12^th but was cancelled at the last minute. The hearing has been rescheduled for May 19^th. Here is the meeting notice: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast. (Senate Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 9, 2015. Those who testified about the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in listening to the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast (audio only) of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 512 begins around the 2:16 mark. A committee substitute was offered to make the bill identical to HB 2196. The bill was unanimously voted out of committee on March 16, 2015.)

· Status of HB 2196: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

Product Liability Claims

HB 1988 - Liability of Manufacturers and Sellers for Misuse of Products

· Summary: HB 1988, filed by Rep. Drew Springer (R - Gainesville), would amend Chapter 82 of the CPRC to address the liability of a product manufacturer or seller for the subsequent misuse of a product. More specifically, the bill would add section 82.0045 to the CPRC and provide that, in a products liability action, a manufacturer or seller would not be liable “for any claim arising out of harm caused by misuse of a product by a person other than the manufacturer or seller.” HB 1988 would also allow the court to, on its own motion and after reasonable notice to the parties, dismiss a claim filed after September 1, 2015, “if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim was caused by misuse of a product by a person other than the manufacturer or the seller.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 12, 2015.

Qualifications for Public Office and Term Limits

SJR 6 - Constitutional Amendment to Provide Qualifications for and Limit the Time that a Person May Serve in Certain Offices

· Summary: SJR 6, filed by Sen. Don Huffines (R – Dallas), proposes a constitutional amendment that would place terms limits on legislators (12 years) and would limit the amount of time that a legislator could serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives or as a committee chair. SJR 6 would also impose term limits on almost the entire Texas judiciary. For example, SJR 6 would bar Supreme Court justices and CCA judges from re-election if they had previously been elected to two full terms; however, the intermediate appellate court justices would not be subject to the term limits imposed under the current version of SJR 6. SJR 6 would also apply to "every district office or office of a political subdivision of this state that is filled by popular election," which appears to include district judges, county court-at-law judges, justices of the peace and county and district attorneys. All would be ineligible for re-election if they had served eight years or more. SJR 6 would become effective in 2016.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 27, 2015.

SJR 24 - Constitutional Amendment Limiting to Two the Number of Consecutive Terms for Which a Person may be Elected or Appointed to Hold Certain State Offices (Companion: HJR 38)

· Summary: SJR 24, filed by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R - Tyler), would prohibit a person who has been elected or appointed to serve two consecutive terms in an office listed in Article IV, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution (i.e., Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Commissioner of the General Land Office, and Attorney General), as well as “any other statewide elective office, other than a statewide judicial office,” from serving for a third consecutive term. However, SJR would not limit a person ’s eligibility for election or appointment to serve nonconsecutive terms. The companion resolution, HJR 38, was filed by Rep. Lyle Larson (R - San Antonio).

· Status of SJR 24: Referred to State Affairs on February 2, 2015.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HJR 38: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 18, 2015. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 38 begins around the 2:07:45 mark. The resolution remains pending.

Survival Actions

HB 3416 - Authority of Certain Persons to Bring a Survival Action

· Summary: HB 3416, filed by Rep. Larry Phillips (R - Sherman), would amend section 71.021 of the CPRC by adding the following section (b-1): “A legal representative of the estate of the injured person may bring the action or, if no action is filed by a legal representative of the estate, one or more heirs may bring the action for the benefit of all heirs and the estate of the injured person.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 17, 2015.

Trial Court Procedure

SB 1534 – Venue in Lawsuits Filed Against the State of Texas or State Agency

· Summary: SB 1534, filed by Rep. Konni Burton (R - Colleyville), would amend the CPRC to add section 15.021, which would provide that a lawsuit against the State of Texas or a state agency may be brought in either Travis County or “a county in which the court of appeals is held for a court of appeals district that includes the county in which the plaintiff: (a) resided at the time of the accrual of the cause of action; or (b) resides at the time the suit is brought.”

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on March 23, 2015.

HB 241 - Substituted Service of Citation Through Social Media

· Summary: HB 241, filed by Rep. Jeff Leach (R - Plano), would add section 17.302 to the CPRC and permit a court to authorize service of process via electronic communication through a “social media presence” if substituted service is authorized under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HB 241 would also require the Supreme Court to promulgate rules to provide for substituted service through social media. Rep. Leach filed a similar bill in 2013 (HB 1989), but it died in committee.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 241 out of committee, without amendment, on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. There was a considerable amount of discussion about the appropriateness of serving a defendant via social media. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 241 begins around the 13:20 mark.)

HB 1692 - Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens (Companion: SB 1942)

· Summary: HB 1692, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would amend section 71.051(e) of the CPRC and provide that, in determining whether a case should be dismissed under the forum non conveniens provisions, the “plaintiff’s choice of a forum…shall be given substantial deference, provided that the plaintiff is a legal resident of the state and the underlying litigation has a significant connection to this state.” HB 1692 would also eliminate the “legal resident” definition and add to the definition of “plaintiff” the following: “an intervenor, beneficiary, next friend, or other derivative party to the plaintiff ’s claim” and “a decedent ’s estate, if the decedent was not a legal resident of this state at the time of death.” The companion bill (SB 1942) was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1692: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1692: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1692: On May 11, 2015, the full House passed HB 1692 by a 132-5 vote. The bill was forwarded to the Senate and referred to State Affairs on May 12^th. The committee has scheduled a public hearing on the bill at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, May 18^th. Here is the notice of hearing: Notice of Hearing. For those interested in watching the proceeding, here is the link to the video: Senate Live Video. (House Committee History: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 1692 out of committee by a 5-4 vote. The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Those who testified either for, on, or against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1692 begins around the 4:14:00 mark.)

· Status of SB 1942: Referred to State Affairs on March 25, 2015.

HB 2211 - Agreed Venue Selection in Civil Actions

· Summary: HB 2211, filed by Rep. John Wray (R - Waxahachie), would amend CPRC section 15.020 and require a court to transfer an action to another county if the parties consent to the transfer and the motion to transfer is filed before trial begins.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

Wrongful Life/Birth Causes of Action

HB 1367 - Elimination of Wrongful Life/Birth Causes of Action

· Summary: HB 1367, filed by Rep. Gilbert Pena (R - Pasadena), would amend the CPRC to expressly eliminate “wrongful life” and “wrongful birth” causes of action.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 9, 2015.

HB 3008 - Elimination of Wrongful Birth Cause of Action

· Summary: HB 3008, filed by Rep. Ron Simmons (R - Carrollton), would amend the CPRC to expressly prohibit a cause of action and damages arising on a claim that “but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted.”

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 29^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 3008 out of committee without amendment. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3008 begins around the 3:19:30 mark.

 

May 10, 2015 

There are now twenty-two (22) days left in the regular session. Tomorrow (Monday, May 11^th) is the last day for House committees to report House bills and joint resolutions in order for the measures to have any realistic chance of being placed on a House calendar for purposes of receiving a vote by the full House. Of course, the text of any House bill not voted out of committee before that date could still find its way onto another bill by way of amendment or a Senate companion bill, if any, can continue to move through the process.

Last week, two of the monitored bills, HB 1692 (Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens) and HB 3880 (Requirements for Placement on General Primary Election Ballot as a Candidate for Judicial Office), were passed by the House. Meanwhile, House and Senate committees took public testimony on four (4) monitored bills and voted three (3) others out of committee.

As in past updates, I’ve included bill number links in the “The Week in Review” and “The Week Ahead” sections that will take you to the summaries for each bill in the “Monitored Legislation” section.

The Week in Review

The following four (4) monitored bills received public hearings last week:

SB 531 – Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Proceeding involving Marriage, a Suit for Dissolution of a Marriage/Affecting

Parent-Child Relationship

SJR 8 – Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Legislature to Require a Court to Provide Notice to the Attorney General of a Constitutional

Challenge to State Statutes

HB 3176 – Patent Infringement Claims

HJR 90 – Constitutional Amendment to Abolish the Court of Criminal Appeals

The following five (5) bills were voted out of committee or passed by the Senate/House:

SB 1116 – Notices or Documents Sent by Mail or Electronic Mail by a Court, Clerk or Judge (voted out of House committee)

HB 670 – Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Texas (voted out of committee)

HB 1692 – Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens (passed by the House)

HB 2730 – Creation of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals (voted out of committee)

HB 3880 – Requirements for Placement on General Primary Election Ballot as a Candidate for Judicial Office (passed by the House)

The status of each bill, as well as the others that experienced some form of activity last week, have been updated below.

The Week Ahead

The following monitored bill/resolution is currently scheduled for public hearing this week:

SB 512 – Promulgation of Forms for Use in Probate Matters

Of course, others could be scheduled for hearing during the week.

Monitored Legislation

The subject-matter groupings below that include bills scheduled for hearing have been marked with an “++”. The status of each bill has been updated below and, where appropriate, links to hearing notices, witness lists, bill analyses, video/audio broadcasts, and other related documents have been posted for each bill. (Note: If you would rather jump-down to a category of bills instead of perusing the entire list from top-to-bottom, you can click on the subject heading below.)

Appellate Procedure

Attorney's Fees/Fee Agreements

Attorneys - Practice of Law

Certificate of Merit

Collaborative Law

Constitutional Challenges to Texas Statutes

Construction Defect Claims

Damages

Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Decisions Based on Foreign Laws (Non-Family Law Proceedings)

Defamation/Libel

Elections

Evictions

Family Law

Governmental Immunity

Health Care Liability

Insurance

Judicial Selection

Judiciary/Court Administration

Lawsuit Financing/Lending

Patent Infringement Claims

Probate Court Proceedings++

Product Liability Claims

Qualifications for Public Office/Term Limits

Survival Actions

Trial Court Procedure

Wrongful Birth/Life Causes of Action

Appellate Procedure

HB 1494 - Filing of the Reporter's Record

· Summary: HB 1494, filed by Rep. Bryan Hughes (R - Mineola), would amend section 52.047 of the Government Code to state that a court reporter would not be required to file an official transcript of a trial before the 60^th day after the date a notice of appeal is filed. However, this amendment would not apply to accelerated or interlocutory appeals.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 1494 out of committee without amendment. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1494 begins around the 1:41:00 mark.)

Attorney’s Fees/Fee Agreements

HB 230 - Recovery of Attorney's Fees in Certain Civil Cases

· Summary: HB 230, filed by Rep. Jessica Farrar (D - Houston), would amend Chapter 38.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code (CPRC) to (1) add “other legal entity” to the list of those from whom attorney’s fees can be recovered; and (2) expressly provide that Chapter 38.001 does not authorize the recovery of attorney’s fees from the state, an agency or institution of the state, or a political subdivision. The bill would further provide that the amendment to Chapter 38.001 does not affect any other statute that permits the recovery of attorney’s fees from the governmental entities listed in the statute.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 230 was passed by the full House on April 9^th. On May 4^th, the bill was referred to State Affairs in the Senate. (House Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 230 begins around the 1:47:30 mark. HB 230 was voted out of committee without amendments on March 17^th.)

HB 247 - Limitations on Certain Actions Arising Out of Attorney's Fee Agreements

· Summary: HB 247, filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would place limitations on claims that could be brought under contingent fee agreements that comply with the statute (i.e., agreements that expressly state the method by which a fee is determined; that litigation and other expenses will be deducted from the recovery; and whether litigation expenses and other expenses are deducted before or after the contingent fee is calculated). The limitations in HB 247 would also apply to contingency fee agreements in which an attorney represents two or more clients and enters into an aggregate settlement agreement of the clients’ claims if the agreement expressly discloses: 1) the existence and nature of all claims or pleas involved; 2) the nature and extent of the participation of each client in the settlement; and 3) the amount of remittance to each client and the method by which the remittance will be determined.

HB 247 would permit a party to bring a claim arising out of an agreement subject to the statute only on the grounds that the agreement was obtained by corruption, coercion, force, fraud, or other undue means, or that the agreement was forged. Further, in a claim arising out of the settlement of matters involving multiple clients that is brought on grounds other than those permitted by HB 247, the settlement will be “irrebuttably presumed” to be: 1) fully disclosed, read, understood, and voluntarily entered into by all parties to the agreement; 2) fair, accepted, reasonable, and made in the best interests of the parties by the parties or through their attorneys; and 3) final and not subject to subsequent litigation.

On the motion of a party, a court will be required to dismiss with prejudice any action involving claims arising out of an agreement that is subject to HB 247 if the action is brought on grounds other than those permitted by HB 247.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 5, 2015.

HB 1531 - Referrals for Legal Services by Legislators and Executive Officers

· Summary: HB 1531, filed by Rep. Charlie Geren (R - Fort Worth), would add section 572.063 to the Government Code and prohibit a member of the legislature or an executive officer elected in a statewide election who is a member of the State Bar of Texas or who is licensed to practice law in another state or a United States territory from making or receiving any referral for legal services for monetary compensation or any other benefit unless the referral complied with State Bar rules and is evidenced by a written contract between the parties who are subject to the referral. A violation of this law would be a Class A misdemeanor. The original version of the bill prohibited referrals without exception.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 2^nd, General Investigating & Ethics voted the committee substitute out of committee and sent the bill to Calendars on April 7^th. (Committee History: General Investigating & Ethics conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2015. No one testified for, against, or on the bill. Only one person registered to take a position on the bill and it was a registration of support. Here is the Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1531 begins around the 2:08:00 mark.)

Attorneys – Practice of Law

SB 534 - Oath of Persons Admitted to Practice Law in Texas (Companions: HB 1644; HB 1909)

· Summary: SB 534, filed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D - Austin), would amend section 82.037 of the Government Code and revise the oath taken by all attorneys admitted to practice law in Texas so as to require attorneys to conduct themselves “with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties.” Companion bills, HB 1644 and 1909, were filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo) and Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi) respectively.

· Bill Analysis for SB 534: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 534: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 534: On April 30^th, after having been considered by and voted out of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 28^th, the full House passed SB 534 without amendment, thereby making it eligible for the Governor to sign into law. The Senate had unanimously passed SB 534 on March 24^th. (Committee History: On March 2, 2015, State Affairs conducted a hearing on SB 534. All who appeared before the committee, including representatives from the Texas Trial Lawyers Association (TTLA), the Texas Association of Defense Counsel (TADC), and the Texas Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates (TEX-ABOTA), testified in support of the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 534 begins around the 44:55 mark. The bill was unanimously voted out of committee).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1644: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1644: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1644: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 1644 out of committee without amendment. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 24, 2015. Several testified in support of the bill. No one opposed it. Those who testified are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1644 begins around the 1:02:35 mark.)

SB 765 - Repeal of Occupation Tax (Companion: HB 2089)

· Summary: SB 765, filed by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R - Tyler), would repeal the $200 annual attorney occupation tax, as well as other occupation taxes on licensed professionals. The companion bill, HB 2089, was filed by Rep. Drew Darby (R - San Angelo), but multiple representatives have joined in on the bill.

· Bill Analysis for SB 765: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 765: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 765: Senate Finance conducted a hearing on many “tax relief” bills, including SB 765, on March 3, 2015. Public testimony was taken on March 4^th. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcasts of the hearings: Senate Archived Broadcasts (March 3rd) and Senate Archived Video (Public Testimony - March 4th) . Testimony about SB 765 at the March 3^rd hearing begins around the 10:45 mark; public testimony at the March 4^th hearing begins around the 1:19:20 mark. Here is the list of witnesses who testified about the bill: Witness List. The bill remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for HB 2089: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 2089: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2089: On April 23, 2015, the House unanimously passed HB 2089. The bill was received by the Senate and referred to Senate Finance on April 28^th. (Committee History: Licensing & Administrative Procedures conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Several testified or registered in support of the bill. No one opposed it. Those who testified or registered in support of HB 2089 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony on HB 2089 begins around the 2:07:25 mark. The committee approved a committee substitute for HB 2089 and voted it out of committee on April 6, 2015.)

SB 1430 – Eligibility of Attorneys Licensed Outside of State to Take Bar Exam (Companion: HB 2045)

· Summary: SB 1430, filed by Sen. Bob Hall (R - Rockwall), would amend the Government Code by adding section 82.025 and would permit an attorney licensed to practice law in another state to take the Texas bar examination regardless of whether the attorney has completed the study of law in an approved law school if the attorney: (1) is a United States citizen; and (2) satisfies all other requirements to be licensed in Texas. The companion bill, HB 2045, was filed by Rep. James White (R - Woodville).

· Status of SB 1430: Referred to State Affairs on March 18, 2015.

· Fiscal Note for HB 2045: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2045: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 2045 begins around the 49:20 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 2624 - Effects of Default on a Student Loan Administered by Higher Education Coordinating Board on License Renewals

· Summary: HB 2624, filed by Rep. Chris Turner (D - Arlington/Grand Prairie), would amend the Education Code to prevent licensed professionals (including licensed attorneys) who are in default on student loans administered by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) from having their professional licenses renewed. Under the bill, THCEB would receive a list of licensees from the applicable licensing board/agency to determine if any of the licensees are in default on their loans and then send a default list back to the licensing board/agency. A person who was in default could enter a repayment plan with the THECB, at which time the licensing board/agency could still renew the license as long as the licensee was current on repayments. The licensing agency would have to provide a hearing before non-renewing a license. Under HB 2624, the licensing board/agency would create its own rules to carry out the bill's provisions. The bill specifically requires the Supreme Court to create the rules for non-renewing law licenses.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 1^st, HB 2624 was voted out of committee without amendments and was recommended for the Local & Consent calendar. (Committee History: Higher Education conducted a public hearing on March 25, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2624 begins around the 26:50 mark.)

Certificate of Merit

HB 1353 - Certificates of Merit for Certain Professionals (Companion: SB 1579)

· Summary: HB 1353, filed by Rep. Charlie Geren (R - Fort Worth), would add a definition of “claimant” to CPRC section 150.001, which is the statute that requires a person to file an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor with a claim for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional. For purposes of the statute, “claimant” would mean a party, including a plaintiff, counter-claimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff, seeking recovery of damages. The current statute uses only the undefined term “plaintiff.” The companion bill, SB 1579, was filed by Sen. Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay).

· Status of HB 1353: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 17, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1353 begins around the 10:00 mark.

· Status of SB 1579: Referred to State Affairs on March 23, 2015.

Collaborative Law

HB 2512 - Adoption of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act

· Summary: HB 2512, filed by Rep. Bill Zedler (R - Arlington), would add Chapter 160 to the CPRC and adopt the Uniform Collaborative Law Act in order to clarify rules about the mechanics of collaborative law. Collaborative law is a voluntary process that is intended to provide for a form of limited scope representation in which an attorney is retained solely for the purpose of reaching a settlement, and expressly not for the purpose of litigation.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either for, on, or against the bill. Two individuals/attorneys testified in favor of HB 2512. Representatives from TTLA, TADC, and TEX-ABOTA all testified against it. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 2512 begins around the 2:50:00 mark. The bill remains pending,

Constitutional Challenges to Texas Statutes

SJR 8 - Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Legislature to Require a Court to Provide Notice to the Attorney General of a Constitutional Challenge to State Statutes

· Summary: SJR 8, filed by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D - Laredo), would amend the Texas Constitution to specifically authorize the Legislature to (1) require a court to notify the attorney general of a challenge to the constitutionality of a Texas statute, and (2) prescribe a reasonable period after notice is provided during which the court may not enter a judgment holding a statute unconstitutional. [Note: SJR 8 is the legislative response to the 2013 decision by the CCA holding that section 402.010(a)-(b) of the Government Code, which prevents a court from entering a final judgment until the AG is notified of a constitutional challenge to a statute, violated the separation-of-powers principles set forth in the Texas Constitution]. As you may recall, the Legislature passed legislation in 2011 (HB 2425) amending the Government Code to require courts to notify the AG when constitutional challenges to state statutes were raised. The law was amended in 2013 to place the burden of notifying the court of the pleading that should be served on the AG on the party raising the constitutional challenge (SB 392).

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on May 7, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archive broadcast of the hearing: Senate Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about SJR 8 around the 1:29:40 mark. The resolution of was left pending.

Construction Defect Claims

HB 1784 - Construction Defect Claims

· Summary: HB 1784, filed by Rep. Paul Workman (R - Austin), would amend section 41.015 of the CPRC to establish a 10-year statute of repose for construction defect claims against the person who actually designed, administered, constructed, or repaired an improvement to real property. The statute of repose would apply only to the actual costs incurred in curing a construction defect and the amount of damages for cost to cure would be reduced by 10% on each anniversary date of substantial completion of the construction of repair that occurs before the date the action is filed. An award of exemplary damages, multiplied damages, or other damages computed on the basis of the amount of damages for the cost to cure the defect would have to reflect any reduction made under section 41.015.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Construction industry representatives testified in support of HB 1784, while TTLA and representatives of the cities of Fort Worth and Austin opposed the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1784 begins around the 1:53:20 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but has yet to be posted. The bill was left pending.

Damages

HB 419 - Federal Income Tax Liability for Damages Awarded in Civil Actions

· Summary: HB 419, filed by Rep. Gene Wu (D – Houston), would amend Chapter 41 of the CPRC to require a defendant to compensate a claimant for federal income tax liability arising out of a damages award.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either against or on the bill, most of which (all insurance and/or contractor representatives) were against it. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 419 begins around the 1:39:00 mark. A committee substitute was proposed that reportedly includes a 2-year limitation period for defendants to be liable for compensation under this bill, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

HB 820 - Liability for Damages Arising from Certain Motor Vehicle Accidents

· Summary: HB 820, filed by Rep. Ed Thompson (R - Pearland), would amend the CPRC by adding Chapter 72A, which would prevent an uninsured driver who was in a car accident from recovering exemplary and noneconomic damages in a lawsuit for bodily injury, death or property damage. The same prohibition would apply to derivative claims arising out of the accident, such as claims for wrongful death or loss of consortium or companionship. However, the prohibition would not apply to claims brought by the uninsured driver in a representative capacity (e.g., as next friend if the uninsured driver’s minor child was injured) or if the at-fault driver was driving drunk, acted willfully or was grossly negligent, had fled the scene, or was committing a felony when the accident happened.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 3, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups registered to testify both for and against HB 820: Witness List. TTLA and Texas Watch provided oral testimony in opposition to the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 820 begins around the 3:30 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but the bill remains pending.

HB 969 - Availability and Use of Certain Evidence in Connection with an Award of Exemplary Damages (Companion: SB 735)

· Summary: The original version of HB 969, filed by Rep. Ken King (R - Hemphill), sought to amend section 41.011 of the CPRC and eliminate “the net worth of defendant” as one of the elements considered in determining the amount of exemplary damages. However, the committee substitute approved by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee does two different things: (1) it would define “net worth” to mean “the total assets of a person minus the total liabilities of the person on a date determined appropriate by the trial court;” and (2) it would add section 41.0115 to the CPRC and would provider as follows:

“Sec. 41.0115. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OF NET WORTH FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CLAIM. (a) On the motion of a party and after notice and a hearing, a trial court may authorize discovery of evidence of a defendant's net worth if the court finds in a written order that the claimant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages. Evidence submitted by a party to the court in support of or in opposition to a motion made under this subsection may be in the form of an affidavit or a response to discovery. (b) If a trial court authorizes discovery under Subsection (a), the court's order may only authorize use of the least burdensome method available to obtain the net worth evidence. (c) When reviewing an order authorizing or denying discovery of net worth evidence under this section, the reviewing court may consider only the evidence submitted by the parties to the trial court in support of or in opposition to the motion described by Subsection (a).”

The companion to the original bill, SB 735, was filed by Sen. Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay).

· Bill Analysis for HB 969: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 969: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 969: By a 5-4 vote, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted the committee substitute for HB 969 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified or registered either for, on or against HB 969. Representatives from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and businesses/organizations were in favor of the bill. A TTLA representative testified against the bill. A TADC representative also testified, but did not take a position on HB 969. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 969 begins around the 3:30:35 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 735: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 735: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 735: By a 20-11 vote, the full Senate passed SB 735 on April 28, 2015. In the House, the bill was Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on May 4^th. On May 7^th, SB 735 failed to receive an affirmative vote in committee. (Senate Committee History: By a 7-2 vote, State Affairs voted SB 735 out of committee on April 22, 2015. The committee conducted a public hearing on April 13, 2015. Several witnesses testified or registered either for, on or against SB 735. Representatives from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and businesses/organizations were in favor of the bill. A TTLA representative testified against the bill. A TADC representative testified, but did not take a position on SB 735. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 735 begins around the 2:37:40 mark.)

Deceptive Trade Practices Act

HB 2898 - Relating to Certain DTPA Procedures, Civil Penalties, and Remedies

· Summary: HB 2898, filed by Rep. Sarah Davis (R - Houston), would amend sections 17.45(9) and (13) of the Business & Commerce Code in order to modify the definitions of “intentionally” and “knowingly” and certain portions of the provisions related to the consumer protection division of the AG’s office (i.e., sections 17.47, 17.60, and 17.61). More specifically, HB 2898 would (a) substitute the phrase “misleading nature” for the word “unfairness” in the “knowingly” definition in section 17.45(9); and (b) change the definition of “intentionally” to read as follows:

(13) "Intentionally" means actual awareness, at the time of the act or practice complained of, of the falsity, deception, or misleading nature [unfairness] of the act or practice giving rise to the consumer ’s claim [,] or the condition, defect, or failure constituting a breach of warranty giving rise to the consumer’s claim, coupled with the specific intent that the consumer act in detrimental reliance on the act, practice, condition, defect, or failure [falsity or deception or in detrimental ignorance of the unfairness]. Intention may be inferred from objective manifestations that indicate that the person acted intentionally or from facts showing that a defendant acted with flagrant disregard of prudent and fair business practices to the extent that the defendant should be treated as having acted intentionally.

The remaining changes specifically relate to the enforcement provisions applicable to the AG’s office.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 17, 2015.

Decisions Based on Foreign Laws (Non-Family Law Proceedings)

HB 670 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Texas (Related Constitutional Amendment: HJR 32)

· Summary: HB 670 and HJR 32, filed by Rep. Dan Flynn (R - Canton), are similar to bills and related resolutions filed in 2011 and 2013 that failed to pass. HB 670 and HJR 32 would prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing “a ruling or decision” on “a foreign law,” or otherwise enforcing contract provisions that either require the application of a foreign law to a dispute or require parties to litigate their dispute in a forum outside of the United States if such provisions would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Texas Constitution.

· Bill Analysis for HB 670: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 670/HJR 32: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 670: On May 7, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 670 out of committee, without amendment, by a 5-3 vote (1 absent). The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Several individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 670 begins around the 1:31:40 mark.

· Status of HJR 32: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Numerous individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 32 begins around the 1:02:35 mark. On April 16, 2015, the committee voted on the bill but it failed to pass out of committee.

HB 828 - Application of Foreign or International Laws or Doctrines

· Summary: HB 828, filed by Rep. Bill Zedler (R - Arlington), would prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing “a ruling or decision” on either “a foreign or international law or doctrine” or “a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.” HB 828 would also require a court to “uphold and apply the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, federal laws, and the laws of this state, including the doctrine that is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and known as the church autonomy doctrine.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on February 23, 2015.

Defamation/Libel

SB 627 - Relating to Certain Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for a Libel Action (Companion: HB 1766)

· Summary: SB 627, filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston), would amend Chapter 73 of the CPRC (Defamation Mitigation Act) to add the “publication of allegations made by a third party regarding matters of public concern, regardless of the truth or falsity of the allegations” to the list of publications that are privileged and not grounds for a libel action. It would also add the following sections: “[t]his section does not abrogate or lessen any other defense, remedy, immunity, or privilege available under other constitutional, statutory, case, or common law or rule provisions” and “[t]his section shall be construed liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent fully.” The companion bill (HB 1766) was filed by Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi).

· Bill Analysis for SB 627: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 627: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 627: On April 22, 2015, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 627. The bill was subsequently sent to the House and has been referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence. (Senate Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 2, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups testifying for and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 627 begins around the 1:35:55 mark. On April 15, 2015, State Affairs approved a committee substitute for SB 627, which sought to further clarify that a journalist accurately reporting on third party allegations regarding matters of public concern could use the accuracy of such reporting as a defense to libel.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 1766: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1766: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1766: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted a committee substitute for HB 1766 out of committee on April 23, 2015. The committee substitute makes the bill identical to the version adopted by the Senate. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups that either testified or registered a position on HB 1766: Witness List. TTLA, TLR, and the Texas Association of Broadcasters were among those who either testified or registered as being for the bill. No one testified against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1766 begins around the 2:45 mark.)

HB 4116 - Defense to Libel Actions

· Summary: HB 4116, filed by Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi), would amend section 73.005 of the CPRC by adding subsections (b) and (c), which would result in section 73.005 reading as follows:

Sec. 73.005. TRUTH A DEFENSE. (a) The truth of the statement in a publication on which a libel action is based is a defense to the action. (b) Subject to subsection (c), it is a defense to a libel action that the publication accurately reported the allegations of a third party regarding a matter of public concern. (c) Subsection (b) does not apply if: (i) the publication was made with actual malice; and (ii) the fact that the allegation was made is not itself a matter of public concern.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Elections

HB 25 - Elimination of Straight Ticket Voting for Judicial Offices (Companion: SB 1702)

· Summary: HB 25, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would eliminate straight ticket voting for judicial offices. HB 25 is virtually identical to SB 103 filed last session, which was voted out of committee but never was put to a vote before the full Senate. The companion bill, SB 1702, was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Fiscal Note for HB 25 / SB 1702: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 25: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Very few individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. Those who did testify (or registered a position on the bill) are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 25 begins around the 5:40 mark. HB 25 remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for SB 1702: Senate Research Center

· Status of SB 1702: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Most witnesses who testified about the bill opposed it. Those who did testify (or registered a position without testifying) are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Broadcast Archive. Testimony about SB 1702 begins around the 1:42:00 mark. SB 1702 remains pending.

HB 1444 - Elimination of Straight-Party Voting in Certain Counties

· Summary: HB 1444, filed by Rep. Jason Villalba (R - Dallas), would amend section 52.071 of the Election Code to eliminate straight ticket voting for judicial offices and local executive offices in counties with a population over 1,000,000.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 5, 2015.

HB 2754 - Filing Requirements for Candidates for Certain Judicial Offices

· Summary: HB 2754, filed by Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R - Southlake), would repeal sections 172.021(e) and (g) of the Elections Code, which would eliminate the petition requirement for certain judicial candidates. Specifically, under HB 2754, candidates for the following judicial offices would no longer have to include a petition with their application and fee to get on the general primary election ballot:

o Chief Justice or justice of the Supreme Court;

o Presiding Judge or judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals;

o Chief justice or justice of a court of appeals in an appellate district in which a county with a population of more than one million is wholly or partly situated;

o district or criminal district judge of a court in a judicial district wholly contained in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million;

o judge of a statutory county court in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million; and

o justice of the peace in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million.

A similar (though not identical) bill (HB 3880 Bill Analysis) was filed by Rep. Craig Goldman (R - Fort Worth). A public hearing was held in front of Elections at the same time as HB 2754. The committee voted HB 3880 out of committee on April 16, 2015 without amendment. It was passed by the full House (135-4) on May 8^th.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16, 2015, Elections voted HB 2754 out of committee (by a 6-0 vote, with one absent) without amendments. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Those who testified are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2754 begins around the 3:14:00 mark.)

Evictions

HB 3364 - Appeals of Eviction Suit Judgments

· Summary: HB 3364, filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston), would amend section 24.007 of the Property Code to prohibit appeals of county court judgments in eviction suits on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only. HB 3364 would add back in to section 24.007(a) the same language that was removed from the statute in 2011. The bill would also repeal section 24.007(b), which was enacted in 2011 and authorizes appeals of final judgments of a county court, statutory county court, statutory probate court, or district court in an eviction suit.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015 and unanimously voted it out of committee on April 29^th. No witnesses testified on HB 3364; however, a few witnesses registered as being for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3364 begins around the 3:48:15 mark. The bill was left pending.

Family Law

HB 562 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Proceeding involving Marriage, a Suit for Dissolution of a Marriage/Affecting Parent-Child Relationship (Companion: SB 531)

· Summary: The committee substitute for the original version of HB 562, filed by Rep. Jeff Leach (R - Plano), would prohibit a court or arbitrator in a family law matter from making a ruling or decision based on a foreign law if the application of that law would be “contrary to the public policy of [Texas].” Under the bill, the application of a law would be contrary to public policy if it would: (1) violate a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution; (2) violate a fundamental right guaranteed by the Texas constitution; (3) violate good morals or natural justice; or (4) be prejudicial to the general interests of the citizens of Texas. The companion bill to the original version of HB 562 (SB 531) was filed by Sen. Donna Campbell (R - New Braunfels). SB 531 is similar to HB 899, which is summarized below.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status for HB 562: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 562, as amended, out of committee by a 7-2 vote. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Numerous individuals either testified for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 562 begins around the 1:59:20 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 531: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 531: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status for SB 531: State Affairs conducted a hearing on the bill on May 4, 2015. Numerous individuals and groups either testified or registered a position on SB 531. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about SB 531 begins around the 2:14:10 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 899 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Certain Family Law Proceedings

· Summary: Like HB 670, HB 899, filed by Rep. Pat Fallon (R - Little Elm), is similar to failed bills filed in prior sessions that would prohibit a court or arbitrator in suits involving the dissolution of a marriage from making a ruling or decision based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or a Texas statute.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 899 was scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, the bill was pulled so no action was taken.

SB 1090 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in a Marriage/Divorce Proceeding or a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (Companion Bill: HB 3943)

· Summary: SB 1090, filed by Sen. Bob Hall (R - Rockwall), is similar to HB 562 (discussed above). The primary difference between SB 1090 and HB 562 is that SB 1090 would amend the Family Code to strictly prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing a decision on a foreign law and from enforcing a contract provision involving a marriage or parent-child relationship that is based on a foreign law, regardless of whether the provision is substantive or procedural (i.e., forum selection or governing law clauses). SB 1090 does not limit the prohibition to only those instances in which the application of the foreign law violates a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or a Texas statute. The companion bill, HB 3943, was filed by Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R - Irving).

· Status of SB 1090: Referred to State Affairs on March 16, 2015.

HB 1195 - Disclosure by an Attorney Before Accepting Representation in a Marriage Dissolution Proceeding

· Summary: HB 1195, filed by Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R - Houston), would require an attorney to disclose certain information to a prospective client before agreeing to represent that client in a divorce proceeding. More specifically, HB 1195 would amend the Family Code to require: (1) the attorney to provide a prospective client with a disclosure form promulgated by the State Bar of Texas (SBOT); and (2) the client to acknowledge in writing that the client has received and understands the disclosure. The disclosure must include information about arbitration, mediation, collaborative law, and alternatives to retaining an attorney for the dissolution of a marriage, as well as any other information that the SBOT may require. HB 1195 is essentially the same bill that Rep. Bohac filed in 2013 (HB 3470), which died in committee.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: The committee on Juvenile Justice & Family Issues voted HB 1195 out of committee (without amendments) on April 8^th and sent it to Calendars on April 14^th. (Committee History: The committee had conducted a public hearing on March 25, 2015. A representative of the Texas Family Law Foundation testified in opposition to HB 1195. No other witnesses testified, but several individuals registered their position on the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1195 begins around the 22:35:00 mark.)

Governmental Immunity

HB 2375 - Liability of a Governmental Unit for Personal Injury and Death Caused by the Governmental Unit’s Negligence

· Summary: HB 2375, filed by Rep. Harold Dutton, Jr. (D - Houston), would amend section 101.021(2) of the CPRC and waive immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) for acts of employees that cause personal injury or death due to “the negligence of the governmental unit” if the governmental unit would otherwise be liable if it were a private person. Under HB 2375, negligence arising from “a condition or use of tangible personal or real property” would be eliminated from the TTCA.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

SB 1600 - Limit on Award of Attorney's Fees in Certain Proceedings against the State or State Agency (Companion: HB 3641)

· Summary: SB 1600, filed by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R - Brenham), would amend the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA) and limit the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in cases seeking declaratory relief against the state or a state agency to an amount “not to exceed to exceed $250,000.” The companion bill, HB 3641, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo),

· Bill Analysis for SB 1600: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB1600: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1600: On April 29^th, by a 7-1 vote, State Affairs voted SB 1600 out of committee. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 20, 2015. Several witnesses registered a position on the bill. TTLA and the Texas NAACP were among those organizations registering their opposition to the bill while TLR and the Texas Conservative Coalition registered as being in favor of the bill. A representative from the Attorney General’s Office was the only testifying witness. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1600 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1600 begins around the 32:20 mark.

· Fiscal Note for HB 3641: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 3641: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Only a representative from the Attorney General’s Office testified on HB 3641. A representative of TLR registered as being for the bill while TTLA registered as being opposed to the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3641 begins around the 3:55:20 mark. The bill was left pending.

Health Care Liability

HB 956 - Scope of a Health Care Liability Claim

· Summary: HB 956, filed by Rep. Chris Turner (D - Arlington/Grand Prairie), is similar to the bill filed by Rep. Turner that failed to pass in 2013 (i.e., HB 2644). It is the legislative response to a series of Supreme Court cases addressing the scope of “health care liability claims” under the Texas Medical Liability Act, including Texas West Oaks Hospital, L.P. v. Williams. Specifically, HB 956 would amend the terms “claimant” and “health care liability claim” in Chapter 74 of the CPRC in an effort to “clarify” the meaning of those terms. Specifically, the term “claimant” would mean a “patient, including a deceased patient’s estate”, instead of “person, including a decedent’s estate.” The term “claimant” would include “both the patient and the party seeking recovery of damages” in cases in which “a party seeks recovery of damages related to injury of another person who is a patient, or other harm to the patient.” The bill would also amend the definition of “health care liability claim” to specify that such claims arise from “treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety directly related to health care…” [emphasis added] and that the term “does not include claims arising from an injury to or death of a person who is not a patient, including employment and premises liability claims.”

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 956 was scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, the bill was pulled so no action was taken.

HB 1403 - Defining Health Care Liability Claim for Purposes of Certain Claims

· Summary: HB 1403, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would amend the definition of “health care liability claim” in Chapter 74 of the CPRC to not include a personal injury claim filed against an employer by an employee not covered by worker’s compensation insurance or the employee’s surviving spouse or heir. The committee substitute for HB 1403 that was adopted by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee would also require the expert report required under 74.351(a) to “address at least one theory of direct liability asserted against each physician or health care provider against whom a theory of direct liability is asserted.”

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted a committee substitute for HB 1403 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either for or against the bill. Representatives from TLR and the Texas Nurses Association testified for HB 1403. TTLA testified against the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 1403 begins around the 11:10:45 mark.)

Insurance Claims

SB 1166 - Recovery of Damages for Delayed Payment of Certain Insurance Claims

· Summary: SB 1166, filed by Sen. Van Taylor (R - Plano), would amend the “Prompt Payment of Claims” section of the Insurance Code to provide additional instances in which an insurer would not be liable for damages due to a delay in paying on a first party claim. Under SB 1166, the damages-for-delay provisions would not apply if: (1) the amount of damages awarded as a result of arbitration or litigation is less than 80 percent of a settlement offer (as defined by section 42.001 of the CPRC) made by an insurer and rejected by the claimant; (2) a claimant fails to provide an affidavit of damages as defined by SB 1166; or (3) the insurer pays to the claimant the amount of damages awarded as a result of an appraisal no later than the 15th business day after the date the damages are awarded in the appraisal.

The “affidavit of damages” provisions in SB 1166 would require a claimant to provide an insurer with an affidavit containing the dollar amount of all damages the claimant intends to seek in a suit no later than the 30th day before the date the claimant commences the suit against the insurer. However, if a claimant ultimately seeks damages that exceed the amount in the claimant’s affidavit, the claimant would be required to provide the insurer with written notice of the excess amount by affidavit no later than the 15th day before the date the claimant files a pleading seeking the excess amount.

Under SB 1166, a claimant could also file a claim seeking damages as a “small claims case” (as provided by section 27.060 of the Government Code) if the disputed amount of the insurance claim does not exceed the maximum amount allowed for a small claims case as determined by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the total amount awarded in an action filed as a small claims case may not exceed two times the disputed amount of the claim. If a suit seeking damages is filed as a small claims case as provided by the Government Code, an insurer may elect to waive the insurer’s right to appeal no later than the 15th day after the date the suit is filed against the insurer.

Finally, SB 1166 would also amend section 542.060 of the Insurance Code to modify the damages provisions of that section. In addition to paying the amount of the claim, an insurer would be liable for interest only on the “disputed amount” of the claim, for reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, and, in small claims cases, for court costs if the insurer did not waive its right to appeal any judgment entered in the small claims case. SB 1166 would also add the following to the damages section of the “Prompt Payment of Claims” section of the Insurance Code: (1) the court will determine the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, but the amount of attorney’s fees must bear a reasonable relationship to the damages awarded by the trier of fact based on the disputed amount of the claim; (2) any interest awarded would begin to accrue on the date the claimant provided the affidavit of damages; and (3) an attorney cannot share attorney’s fees awarded with the claimant.

· Bill Status: Referred to Business & Commerce on March 17, 2015.

HB 3646 - Insurance Claims and Certain Prohibited Acts and Practices Relating to the Business of Insurance (Companion: SB 1628)

· Summary: HB 3646, filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo), would amend various sections of the Insurance Code to do, among other things, the following:

o The definition of “person” would no longer include an adjuster or any third-party individual or entity “engaged by an insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.”

o An insurer would be “solely responsible” for any “unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance” committed by an individual employed by the insurer as an adjuster or a third-party individual or entity engaged by the insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.

o An insured seeking damages in an action against an insurer would be required to provide written notice to the insurer at least 61 days prior to filing suit that includes a sworn statement containing the following information: (1) the specific damage items and the amount alleged to be owed by the insurer; (2) the amount of attorney’s fees the insured reasonably incurred in asserting the claim against the insurer; and (3) the amount that the insured will accept in full and final satisfaction of the claim. If the sworn statement included damage amounts sought by the insured not previously submitted to the insurer, the notice must contain: (1) a sworn statement signed by the insured stating the specific damage items, the amount alleged to be owed by the insured, and the reason the damage items were not previously submitted to the insurer; (2) copies of reports, estimates, photographs, and other items reasonably supporting the insured ’s additional damage items; (3) a statement that the insured will cooperate in allowing the insurer to inspect the insured property for purposes of investigating the additional damage items; (4) the amount of attorney’s fees the insured reasonably incurred in asserting the claim against the insurer; and (5) a stated amount that the insured will accept in full and final satisfaction of the claim.

o Establish a requirement in which a failure to provide requisite notice prior to filing suit would, in certain circumstances, be subject to dismissal.

o Establish a 2-year statute of limitations for providing notice to an insurer of certain claims for damages to or loss of real property or tangible personal property.

The companion bill, SB 1628, was filed by Sen. Larry Taylor (R - Friendswood).

· Fiscal Note for HB 3646: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 3646: Insurance conducted a public hearing on April 22, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups registered to testify for HB 3646, but the witness list has yet to be posted. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 3646 begins around the 3:27:55 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for SB 1628: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1628: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1628: On April 30^th, the full Senate passed SB 1628 by a 21-10 vote. It was referred to Insurance (House) on May 4^th. (Senate Committee History: Business & Commerce voted a committee substitute for SB 1628 out of committee on April 20, 2015. The committee conducted its first public hearing on SB 1628 on March 31, 2015. Many witnesses either testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. Most of those who testified were against the bill; most who registered a position without testifying supported the bill. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1628 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1628 begins around the 1:50:40 mark.

A public hearing on the committee substitute for SB 1628 was conducted on April 14, 2015. Much like the first hearing, many witnesses either testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1628 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1628 begins around the 6:20 mark.)

HB 3697 - Texas Department of Insurance Study of Claims Data and Recovery of Attorney's Fees in First Party Claims

· Summary: HB 3697, filed by Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R - Odessa), would section 542.062 of the Insurance Code and limit the recovery of attorney's fees in first party insurance claims to an amount equal to the recoverable economic damages. Under HB 3697, the Department of Insurance would be required to research and evaluate claims data made in the past five years to compare and establish an understanding between first party claims made, legal actions filed by claimants to recover damages, and complaints made by claimants to the Department, if any.

· Bill Status: Referred to Insurance on March 19, 2015.

HB 3822 - Recovery under Uninsured/Underinsured Insurance Coverage (Companion: HB 3533)

· Summary: HB 3822, filed by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D - Houston), would amend the Insurance Code by adding provisions that prohibit an insurer from requiring, as a prerequisite to asserting an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim, a judgment or other legal determination establishing the other motorist's liability or uninsured/underinsured status. Further, a judgment or other legal determination would not be a prerequisite to asserting a claim for unfair/deceptive acts or practices or for violations of the prompt payment of claims provisions of the Insurance Code. Under HB 3822, an insurer would be required to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim once liability and damages have become reasonably clear.

Also, under HB 3822, prejudgment interest would begin to accrue on the earlier of: (1) the 180th day after the date the claimant notifies the insurer of the claim; or (2) the date on which suit is filed against the insurer to recover uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. Further, for purposes of recovering attorney's fees under section 38.002 of the CPRC, a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage would be considered presented when the insurer receives notice of the claim.

The companion bill, HB 3533, was filed by Rep. Sergio Munoz, Jr. (D - Mission).

· Status of HB 3822: Referred to Insurance on March 23, 2015.

· Status of HB 3533: Referred to Insurance on March 18, 2015.

Judicial Selection

HB 2088 - Interim Study Regarding the Method by Which Judges and Justices are Selected

· Summary: HB 2088, filed by Rep. Justin Rodriguez (D - San Antonio), would create a joint interim committee on judicial selection (consisting a five (5) members from both the House and Senate) to study and review the method by which statutory county court, district and appellate justices/judges are selected for office. The joint committee would be required to report its findings and recommendation to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the House by January 6, 2017. HB 2088 is similar to HB 2772 that passed last session and was signed by Governor; however, the joint committee never met and a report was never generated.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 29^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 2088 out of committee. The committee had conducted a public hearing on the bill on April 21, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups that either testified or registered a position on HB 2088: Witness List. No one testified against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2088 begins around the 1:35:45 mark.

Judiciary/Court Administration

HB 1 / SB 2 - Appropriations Bills (Appellate Court Budget Only)

· Summary/Status: On April 1, 2015, the House voted (141-5) to pass its budget, which appropriated $793 million for the judiciary during the next biennium and included the above-referenced appropriations as recommended by the Appropriations Committee: CSHB 1 (the section of CSHB 1 related to the judiciary is located at pp. 485-528). The $793 million for the judiciary is $32 million more than proposed in the original budget and an almost 4% increase over the last biennium. The House-approved budget includes funding for the following:

· Basic Civil Legal Services – The Supreme Court would receive $61.4 million over the next biennium for basic civil legal services, of which $10 million would be dedicated for legal aid for sexual assault victims and $1.75 million for veterans.

· EFileTexas.gov – The Office of Court Administration (OCA) would receive $28.8 million for the biennium for EFileTexas.gov, which would be funded by $14.4 million collected each year from the $20 e-filing fee that litigants pay when they file civil lawsuits. OCA would also receive in excess of $900,000 each fiscal year to establish four new child protection courts.

· “Similar Funding for Same Size Courts” Block Grant – The intermediate appellate courts would receive the additional $6.4 million dollars needed to fund the remaining half of the “similar funding for same size courts” block grant.

On April 9^th, the Senate Finance Committee considered the House’s budget and approved (unanimously) a committee substitute that mirrored the Senate’s version of the budget. The Senate’s version of the budget was approved by the full Senate on April 14^th. A conference committee has been appointed to reconcile the differences between the two budgets.

The preliminary House and Senate budgets for 2016 and 2017 included slight funding cuts for the judiciary. As originally filed, the House would appropriate $761.5 million to the judiciary for the biennium, a 0.3 percent decrease compared with the last budget. The Senate would give the judiciary $753.1 million, a 1.4 percent decrease.

The Supreme Court asked for additional funds in order to do, among other things, the following: (1) provide raises for staff attorneys, non-legal staff and clerks, as well as provide an increase in the travel budget for Supreme Court committees; and (2) provide legal services for veterans. The intermediate appellate courts jointly requested an additional $6.4 million dollars to fulfill the remaining half of their request for funds under the “similar funding for same size courts” model. [Note: Last session, the 83^rd Legislature passed a budget that included additional funding for intermediate appellate courts that represented half of the funding originally requested by the courts under the “similar funding for same size courts” model. The additional funds were used, in part, to provide targeted salary increases for legal and non-legal staff at the courts to restore some salaries and staff positions, as well as operating costs that were cut in previous fiscal years.] Further, in addition to the similar-funding-for-same-size-courts funds, the Austin and Fort Worth courts requested funds to hire more staff attorneys to help manage their respective caseloads.

Following the recommendations of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Articles I, IV & V, the full Appropriations Committee adopted the Subcommittee's Recommendations that included (1) additional funds for the Supreme Court to provide raises for legal staff and to provide basic civil legal services to veterans and sexual assault victims and (2) the intermediate appellate courts’ request for the additional $6.4 million dollars needed to fund the remaining half of the “similar funding for same size courts” block grant. A Senate Finance subcommittee has also accepted the Supreme Court’s and intermediate appellate courts’ request for these additional funds.

SB 64 - Appellate Court Procedures and Deadlines in Civil Actions

· Summary: SB 64, which is also known as the “Appellate Court Accountability Act”, was filed by Sen. Don Huffines (R – Dallas). SB 64 would establish deadlines for the Supreme Court and intermediate courts of appeals to act on civil appeals.

Supreme Court Deadlines

SB 64 would give the Supreme Court ninety (90) days from the date of filing to deny a petition for review if the court does not request a response and one hundred eighty (180) days if it does not request briefing. The Court would be required to grant or deny the petition no later than three hundred (300) days after the petition is filed if the Court requests briefing. If the Court determined that the issues presented in a petition were related to issues in another case for which a petition has been granted and a decision pending, it could place the petition on hold until the Court decided the prior case. At such time, the Court would be required to publish the names of the parties to the petitions and the issues the Court has determined to be related. Once a decision has been issued in the case for which a petition was placed on hold, the Court would have thirty (30) days to grant or deny the petition.

The bill would also require the Supreme Court to issue a decision for all cases in which the Court grants a petition during the ”term of court” (i.e., the State’s fiscal year) in which the petition for review was granted. If a petition is granted in June or later, the Court could carry the case into the next term under “extraordinary circumstances” but must explain the nature of the “extraordinary circumstances” in the order granting the petition. Any case carried over would have to be decided no later than December 31^st of the next term.

SB 64 would also require the Court to adopt written procedures that allocate responsibilities to individual justices. The chief justice would be required to enforce the procedures and deadlines against individual justices. Such enforcement options would include prohibiting a justice from participating in future oral arguments, reassigning opinions, prohibiting a justice from participating in a new case, and referring a justice to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Intermediate Appellate Court Deadlines

SB 64 would require the courts of appeals to announce whether oral argument has been granted in a civil appeal no later than sixty (60) days after the “final brief” is filed. Oral argument must be held no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the date the final brief has been filed, and the court must issue its decision no later than ninety (90) days after oral argument (if granted) or the date the court announces that oral argument is denied.

The chief justice of each court of appeals would be required to enforce the deadlines in the same manner as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as submit a quarterly report to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding the court’s compliance with the deadlines. If a court of appeals fails to comply, the Chief Justice may prohibit the filing of additional appeals in that court and order the transfer of appeals to other courts. If a court of appeals was prohibited from accepting new appeals, justices of that court would not be credited with state service for the time period during which the court would be prohibit from accepting appeals, and the Legislative Budget Board and Governor would be required to reduce the non-complying court’s budget and shift money to courts receiving transfers. By January 31^st of each year, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would be required to submit a compliance report with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 26, 2015.

SB 443 - Study and Recommendations on Consolidating the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court

· Summary: SB 443, filed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D - Austin), would require the Judicial Council to study and make recommendations as to whether the CCA and the Supreme Court should be consolidated or whether one court should be abolished and its functions and jurisdiction transferred to the other court.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on February 9, 2015.

SB 455 - Creation of a Special Three-Judge District Court (Companion: HB 1091)

· Summary: SB 455, filed by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R - Conroe), would amend the Government Code to create a procedural mechanism that would allow the Attorney General to petition the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the formation of a special three-judge panel to hear certain types of cases in which the State of Texas or an officer or agency of the State is a defendant. Proceedings in front of a three-judge panel would be mandatory in cases involving a claim that either (1) challenges the finances or operations of the public school system; or (2) involves the apportionment of districts for the Texas House, Texas Senate, U.S. Congress, State Board of Education, or the apportionment of state judicial districts. Three-judge panel proceedings would be discretionary in other cases in which the Attorney General certifies that the outcome of the case either (1) significantly impacts the finances of the State; (2) significantly alters the operations of important statewide policies or programs; or (3) is otherwise of exceptional statewide importance such that the case should not be decided by a single district judge. Under SB 455, the Chief Justice’s decision to either deny the AG’s petition or order that a discretionary proceeding be heard by a special three-judge district court would be considered final and not appealable; however, appeals “from an appealable interlocutory order of final judgment” of the three-judge court would be directly to the Supreme Court.

SB 455 provides that the three-judge district court would consist of the district judge to whom the case was assigned at the time the petition to the Chief Justice was submitted, a district judge chosen by the Chief Justice who has been elected by the voters of a county other than the county in which the case was filed, and a justice of a court of appeals chosen by the Chief Justice who has been elected by the voters of a judicial district other than the district in which the case was filed or in which the district judge chosen under the section sits. The three-judge court would be required to sit in the county in which the case was filed and would be subject to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; provided, however, that the Supreme Court may promulgate rules for the operation of the three-judge courts.

The companion bill, HB 1091, was filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston).

· Fiscal Note for SB 455: Legislative Budget Board

· Analysis for SB 455: Senator Research Center

· Status of SB 455: On May 4^th, the full Senate, by a 21-10 vote, passed SB 455 without amendment. It was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence (House) on May 5^th. (Senate Committee History: On April 28^th, State Affairs unanimously voted SB 455 out of committee and the full Senate, by a 21-10 vote, passed the bill without amendment. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 20, 2015. Several witnesses either testified or registered a position on the bill. The only witness who testified was a TTLA representative, who spoke in favor of the bill. TLR registered as being for the bill, while a representative of the NAACP and a Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund representative registered as being against SB 455. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 455 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 455 begins around the 22:55 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 1091: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1091: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1091: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted a committee substitute for HB 1091 out of committee (5-4 vote). (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Several witnesses testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. Most of those who testified or registered a position about the bill opposed it, including TTLA, the Texas Family Law Foundation, and TEX-ABOTA. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on HB 1091 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1091 begins around the 5:41:50 mark.)

SB 524 - Review of State Laws Requiring an Action or Proceeding to be Brought in Travis County or a Travis County Court (Companion: HB 1427)

· Summary: SB 524, filed by Sen. Brian Birdwell (R - Granbury) and Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D - McAllen), would create a commission to review Texas laws to identify each statute and state agency rule that requires an action or proceeding to be brought or considered in Travis County, a Travis County district or statutory county court, or the Third Court of Appeals. The commission would be required to make recommendations on whether the location of the action or proceeding in each statute or state agency rule serves a legitimate state purpose, other than the convenience of the state agency, that supersedes the interests of persons required to travel to Travis County to attend or participate in the action or proceeding or whether the identified statute or state agency rule should be revised to authorize an action or proceeding to be brought or considered in another Texas county. The companion bill, HB 1427, was filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo).

· Status of SB 524: Referred to Business & Commerce on February 18, 2015.

· Bill Analysis for HB 1427: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1427: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1427: HB 1427 was voted out of committee, without amendments, on April 2, 2015. (Committee History: General Investigating & Ethics conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2015. No one testified for, against, or on the bill. Only one person registered to take a position on the bill and it was a registration of support: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1427 begins around the 2:11:15 mark.)

SB 967 - Authority of a District Clerk to Collect Fees for Providing Electronic Copies of Certain Court Records

· Summary: SB 967, filed by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R - Houston), would amend section 51.318 of the Government Code to prohibit a district clerk from charging a fee for noncertified electronic copies of any electronic document on file or of record in the clerk’s office, unless the copy is provided in a bulk distribution.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on March 10, 2015.

SB 1116 - Notices or Documents Sent by Mail or Email by a Court, Court Clerk, or Judge (Companion: HB 2822)

· Summary: SB 1116, filed by Sen. Royce West (D - Dallas), would amend the Government Code to authorize a “court, justice, judge, magistrate, or clerk” to send any notice or document using mail or electronic mail and would apply to all civil and criminal statutes requiring delivery of a notice or document. However, authorized methods of delivery of electronic mail would not include facsimiles, instant messaging, messages on a social network website (including Facebook and Twitter), telegraphs, telephone messages, text messages, videoconferencing, voice messages, or webcams. The companion bill, HB 2822, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo).

· Bill Analysis for SB 1116: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1116: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1116: On April 30^th, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 1116. On May 4^th, the bill was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence in the House, who promptly voted it out of committee (unanimously and without amendment) on May 7^th. (Senate Committee History: State Affairs unanimously voted a committee substitute for SB 1116 out of committee on April 22, 2015. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 16, 2015. Only three witnesses testified on SB 1116 (one in support of the bill; two simply “on” the bill), while several registered support for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1116 begins around the 55:30 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 2822: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 2822: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2822: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 2822 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Only one witness testified on HB 2822, while several registered support for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 2822 begins around the 11:26:10 mark.)

SB 1970 - Increase of Statewide Electronic Filing Fees

· Summary: SB 1970, filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston), would raise the statewide electronic filing system fund fee collected by various courts from $20 to $30.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 28^th, State Affairs voted SB 1970 out of committee by an 8-1 vote. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 23, 2015. A few witnesses appeared to testify or register a position on the bill. The only witness who testified for the bill was a single probate court judge. A representative of the Family Law Foundation registered as being opposed to SB 1970. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1970 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1970 begins around the 34:45 mark.

HB 427/HJR 49 - Creation of Texas Redistricting Commission

· Summary: HB 427 and HJR 49, filed by Rep. Donna Howard (D – Austin), would create the Texas Redistricting Commission (“TRC”), which would be responsible for adopting redistricting plans for the election of the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Senate, and the members of the United States House of Representatives elected from the state of Texas following each federal census. The TRC would also be responsible for reapportioning judicial districts in the event the Judicial Districts Board fails to reapportion the districts.

· Status of HB 427: Referred to Redistricting on February 16, 2015.

· Status of HJR 49: Referred to Redistricting on February 26, 2015.

HB 1122 - Number of Jurors Required in Certain Civil Cases Pending in Statutory County Court (Companion: SB 824)

· Summary: HB 1122, filed by Rep. Travis Clardy (R - Nacogdoches), would amend the Government Code to require that civil cases pending in a statutory county court in which the amount in controversy is $200,000 or more be tried before a jury of twelve (12) members. The bill would also require that the drawing of jury panels, the selection of jurors, and the related practice and procedure conform to that prescribed by law for district courts in the county where the statutory county court is located. The companion bill (SB 824) was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1122: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1122: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1122: On March 17^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously approved a committee substitute that would authorize a commissioners court to reduce the jurisdiction of the county court to $200,000 in those counties in which the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200,000. The committee substitute for HB 1122 (CSHB 1122) has been sent to the Local & Consent Calendar. (Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1122 begins around the 2:00 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 824: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 824: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 824: On April 15^th, the full Senate passed SB 824. The bill was sent to the House and referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 27^th and was considered in a formal meeting of the committee on May 7^th. It was left pending. (Senate Committee History: On March 31, 2015, a committee substitute was voted unanimously out of State Affairs and recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. Like the House version, the committee substitute that would authorize a commissioners court to reduce the jurisdiction of the county court to $200,000 in those counties in which the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200,000, thus negating the need to use a twelve-person jury. (Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 23, 2015. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 824 begins around the 36:44 mark.)

HB 1416 - Judicial Recusal Based on Political Contributions

· Summary: HB 1416, authored by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would require justices on the Supreme Court and judges on the CCA (but apparently not intermediate appellate court justices) to “recuse himself or herself from any case in which the justice or judge has in the preceding four years accepted political contributions…in a total amount of $2,500 or more” from “(1) a party to the case, (2) attorney of record in the case, (3) the law firm of an attorney of record in the case, (4) the managing agent of a party to the case, (5) a member of the board of directors of a party to the case, or (6) a general-purpose committee…that is established or administered by a person who is a party to the case.” Similar legislation was filed in 2009, 2011, and 2013, all of which died in committee.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 9, 2015.

HB 1603 - Creation of the Chancery Court and Court of Chancery Appeals to Hear Certain Cases

· Summary: HB 1603, filed by Rep. Jason Villalba (R - Dallas), would create a statewide specialized civil trial court and an appellate court to hear certain business-related litigation cases, such as actions against businesses, accusations of wrongdoing by businesses or their members, disputes between businesses, violations of Business Organizations Code, Finance Code, and Business & Commerce Code. This court would have no jurisdiction over governmental entities (absent the government entity invoking or consenting to jurisdiction) or personal injury cases unless agreed to by the parties and the court. Some of the other notable components of the bill are:

o The chancery court would be composed of seven (7) judges who are appointed by the governor for staggered six (6) year terms. The judges would be selected from a list of qualified candidates compiled by a bipartisan advisory council (Chancery Court Nominations Advisory Council) and would be required to have at least 10 years of experience in complex business law.

o The court clerk would be located in Travis County, but individual judges would be based in the county seat of their respective counties.

o Current venue rules would apply, but cases could be heard in an agreed-upon county or where the court may decide to be more convenient or necessary.

o There would be a removal procedure for cases filed in a district court.

o The Courts of Chancery Appeals, which would handle appeals from the chancery trial court, would be composed of seven (7) justices from current court of appeals justices that are appointed by the governor based on a list of qualified candidates compiled by the advisory council. Justices would serve six (6) year terms and would hear cases in panels of three (3) randomly-selected justices. Appeals from the CCA would go to the Supreme Court.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16^th, Business & Industry voted HB 1603 out of committee (by a 4-3 vote). The bill’s author had originally intended to amend the bill once it reaches the House floor; however, the committee held another public meeting on April 21^st and adopted the amended bill. Under the amendments, the bill would (1) exempt certain types of cases from the chancery court’s subject matter jurisdiction (e.g., cases brought under the Estates Code, Family Code, the DTPA, and Title 9 (Trusts) of the Property Code) and (2) increase the minimum amount in controversy to $10 million dollars for certain types of chancery court cases. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill. Those testifying in support of HB 1603 included former Chief Justice Tom Phillips and a representative from the Texas Business Law Foundation. Those testifying against the bill included representatives from TTLA, TADC, and TEX-ABOTA. Here is a complete list of those who testified or otherwise registered a position on the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1603 begins around the 2:28:30 mark.) Note: After the initial public hearing, the SBOT granted the requests of the Litigation Section and Judicial Section to oppose HB 1603. The Business Law Section was given permission to support the bill.

HB 1656 - Public Financing of Campaigns for Appellate Judicial Offices

· Summary: HB 1656, filed by Rep. Rafael Anchia (D - Dallas), is essentially the same bill that Rep. Anchia filed in 2013 (HB 1126) and died in committee. HB 1656 would affect the manner in which appellate justice/judge campaigns are financed by providing a public financing option for eligible candidates. Specifically, under HB 1656, a candidate could request public financing by filing a petition signed by a specific number of qualified voters who also make a minimum contribution to the candidate’s campaign. Once the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) declares that a candidate has met the eligibility standards, the candidate could begin receiving distributions from the fund and could no longer accept contributions from private contributors or benefit from the direct campaign expenditures on the candidate’s behalf. The fund would be composed of any amounts appropriated or gifted, as well as by civil penalties levied by the TEC.

· Bill Status: Referred to Elections on March 9, 2015.

HB 2730 - Creation of Fifteenth District Court of Appeals

· Summary: HB 2370, filed by Rep. Phil Stephenson (R - Rosenberg), would create the Fifteenth District Court of Appeals, which would sit in Edinburg and be composed of Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties. The court would consist of three (3) justices. Under HB 2370, the number of justices on the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals would be reduced to three (3) justices.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On May 7^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 2730 out of committee, without amendment, by a 5-3 vote (1 absent). The committee conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were several individuals and groups registered to testify for, on, or against HB 2730: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2730 begins around the 1:04:00 mark.

HB 3426 - Jurisdiction of Statutory County Courts at Law

· Summary: HB 3426, filed by Rep. Gilbert Pena (R - Pasadena), would amend section 25.0003(c)(1) of the Government Code and modify the jurisdiction of statutory county courts at law in the following manner:

“civil cases in which the matter in controversy exceeds $500 but does not exceed $200,000, excluding interest [, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney ’s fees and costs, as alleged on the face of the petition].”

In other words, under HB 3426, statutory or punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs would be included in determining the amount in controversy for purposes of determining jurisdiction.

· Bill Status: HB 3426 had been scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, no action was taken by the committee as the author had asked that the hearing be rescheduled.

HB 3430 - Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

· Summary: HB 3430, filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston), would amend Chapter 22 of the Government Code and essentially require that the Supreme Court be given an opportunity to review any constitutional rulings by the Court of Criminal Appeals before the rulings became final and effective. More specifically, HB 3430 would add the following sections 22.1025 and 22.002(f) to the Government Code:

Sec. 22.1025: “(a) Any ruling by the court of criminal appeals that any statute, rule, or procedure violates either the state or federal constitutions shall not be final and shall have no effect until the later of: (1) 60 days following the ruling; or (2) The denial or dismissal of a petition filed in the supreme court pursuant to Section 22.002(f) of the Government Code.”

Section 22.002(f): “Whenever the court of criminal appeals determines that a statute, rule, or procedure is unconstitutional, the supreme court, on the petition of the attorney general or a district or county attorney, has original civil jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto and mandamus to correct any error in the court of criminal appeals ’ determination.” Section 22.002(f) would apply regardless of whether (1) the CCA rules under the Texas Constitution, U.S. Constitution, or both; (2) the constitutional ruling by the CCA is characterized as criminal or civil; or (3) the ruling by the CCA is characterized as final or non-final.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Former Chief Justice Tom Phillips was one of the individuals who testified in support of HB 3430. A representative for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association testified against the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3430 begins around the 2:16:30 mark. The bill was left pending.

HJR 62 - Constitutional Amendment Regarding the Recording and Publication of Certain Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals Proceedings (Related Bill: HB 3932)

· Summary: HJR 62, filed by Rep. Rep. Terry Canales (D- Edinburg), would amend the Texas Constitution and require the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals to make a video recording (or other electronic visual and audio recording) of each oral argument, proceeding, and open meeting of each court and post the recording on each court’s website. Rep. Canales subsequently filed HB 3932 to correct some of the issues raised by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence during the March 10^th hearing on HJR 62 (discussed below).

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HJR 62: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Although no witnesses testified against the concept, there was much discussion about the scope of the resolution (e.g., whether “proceedings” would encompass internal conferences, etc.) and whether a constitutional amendment was the correct vehicle to impose the recording requirement. The Supreme Court already records oral argument and other public meetings and posts the recordings on its website, so much of the discussion centered around the CCA. For those interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 62 begins around the 1:09 mark. HJR 62 remains pending.

· Status of HB 3932: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

HJR 81 - Constitutional Amendment to Change the Terms of District Court Judges to Six Years

· Summary: HJR 81, filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would increase the terms of district court judges from four years to six years. A similar bill was filed in 2013, but failed to get out of committee.

HJR 90 - Constitutional Amendment to Abolish the Court of Criminal Appeals

· Summary: HJR 90, also filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would abolish the CCA and give jurisdiction of criminal appeals to the Supreme Court. Similar legislation was filed in 2009, 2011, and 2013, each of which died in committee. Under HJR 90, death penalty cases would be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, while all other criminal cases would go through the court of appeals. In non-death penalty cases that make it to the Supreme Court, the justices would sit in panels of three. The Supreme Court would hear death penalty cases en banc.

· Status of HJR 90: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on May 5, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Witness List. Testimony about HJR 90 begins around the 2:28:25 mark. The resolution was left pending.

Lawsuit Financing/Lending

HB 3454 - Assignment of Rights in an Individual's Legal Claim

· Summary: HB 3454, filed by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D - Houston), seeks to regulate “civil justice funding” transactions and “civil justice funding companies,” and would permit a civil justice funding company to enter into a “non-recourse transaction in which [the] civil justice funding company purchases, and a consumer assigns to the company, a contingent right to receive an amount of the potential proceeds of a settlement, judgment, award, or verdict obtained in the consumer’s legal claim” provided that the transaction is documented via a written contract that complies with the requirements set forth in the statute. The bill specifies that a civil justice funding transaction may not be considered a loan or subject to state laws governing loans (including limits on interest rates). A similar bill (HB 1254) was filed by Rep. Thompson in 2013, but it died in committee.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3454 begins around the 5:15 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 3218 - Litigation Finance Agreements

· Summary: HB 3218, filed by Rep. Anna Hernandez (D - Houston), would add Chapter 354 to the Finance Code and establish statutory requirements for “litigation financing agreements.” Under HB 3218, a litigation financing agreement would be defined as an agreement under which “money is provided to or on behalf of a consumer by a litigation financing company for a purpose other than prosecuting the consumer’s legal claim” and “the repayment of the money is in accordance with a litigation financing transaction the terms of which are included as part of the litigation financing agreement.”

HB 3218 would require litigation financing agreements to: (1) be in writing; (2) contain the initials of the consumer on each page; and (3) be “otherwise complete” when presented to the consumer for signature. Other required terms and disclosures, which must be on the front page of the agreement under appropriate headings, would include the following: (1) the funded amount to be paid to the consumer by the litigation financing company; (2) an itemization of one-time charges; (3) the total amount to be assigned by the consumer to the company, including the funded amount and all charges; and (4) a payment schedule that: (a) includes the funded amount and charges; and (b) lists all dates and the amount due at the end of each 180-day period from the funding date until the due date of the maximum amount due to the company by the consumer to satisfy the amount owed under the agreement.

A similar bill (HB 1595) was voted out of committee last session, but was never voted on by the entire House.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Patent Infringement Claims

SB 1187 - Patent Infringement Claims (Companion: HB 3176)

· Summary: SB 1187, filed by Sen. Van Taylor (R - Plano), would add Chapter 2005 to the Business & Commerce Code and prohibit bad faith patent infringement claims. More specifically, SB 1187 would prohibit a person from sending a demand letter that makes, in bad faith, a claim of patent infringement against a Texas resident, and in connection with the claim: (1) files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement; (2) threatens to file a lawsuit if the alleged patent infringement is not resolved; or (3) makes a demand for compensation or damages or payment of a license fee based on the alleged patent infringement. For purposes of SB 1187, a person makes a claim of patent infringement in bad faith if: (1) the claim is objectively baseless, meaning that no reasonable litigant could reasonably expect success on the merits; and (2) the person making the claim knows or should have known that the claim is objectively baseless. However, a claim of patent infringement would be presumed to be made in good faith if the claim is made by a person who holds a certificate of authority issued by the Attorney General under Chapter 2005 or is a claim for relief arising under federal law.

SB 1187 would not create a private cause of action, but would authorize the Attorney General to enforce any violations of Chapter 2005. The bill would also create two information databases-- one for persons sending demand letters and another for the demand letters themselves, both of which would be maintained by the Secretary of State.

The companion bill, HB 3176, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo).

· Bill Analysis of SB 1187: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1187: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1187: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 9, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1187 begins around the 39:10:00 mark. A committee substitute was offered that deletes any criminal penalty for barratry, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

· Status of HB 3176: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on May 5, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, or against the bill. Here is a witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Witness List. Testimony about HB 3176 begins around the 5:09:40 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but it has yet to be posted. It is my understanding that the committee substitute would give the AG power to investigate demands made in bad faith. The bill was left pending.

SB 1457 - Bad Faith Patent Infringement Claims

· Summary: SB 1457, filed by Sen. Robert Nichols (R - Jacksonville), would amend the Business and Commerce Code by adding an additional subchapter to the DTPA entitled "Bad Faith Claims of Patent Infringement." Like SB 1187/HB 3176, the bill would prohibit bad faith claims of patent infringement. However, unlike SB 1187/HB 3176, SB 1457 would define a bad faith claim as one that includes an allegation of infringement and (a) falsely states that the sender has filed a lawsuit in connection with the claim; (b) the claim is objectively baseless; and (c) the communication is likely to materially mislead the recipient because it does not include the identity of the person asserting the claim, the patent that is alleged to have been infringed, and at least one product, service or activity that is alleged to infringe the patent. Under SB 1457, "objectively baseless" would mean that (a) the sender does not have a current right to license the patent or to enforce the patent; (b) the patent has been held invalid or unenforceable in a final judgment or administrative decision; or (c) the infringing activity occurred after the patent expired.

SB 1457 would authorize the Attorney General to bring an action if it believes that the prohibition against bad faith claims of patent infringement has been violated. The Attorney General could also seek injunctive relief and a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000 for each violation as well as reimbursement to the State of Texas of the “reasonable value of investigating and prosecuting a violation” and restitution to the victim for “legal and professional expenses related to the violation.”

The bill specifically states that it would not prohibit a person with rights to license and enforce a patent from notifying others of their ownership, offering it for license, notifying any person of infringement under federal law, or seeking compensation for past or present infringement or for a license to the patent. Finally, SB 1457 also provides that the knowing institution of a suit or claim for patent infringement that constitutes a bad faith claim of patent infringement under the DTPA would be a Class A misdemeanor.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 21, 2015, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 1457. It was referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on May 5^th. (Senate Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 9, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1457 begins around the 39:10:00 mark. On April 15, 2015, the committee unanimously voted the committee substitute out of committee. The substitute deleted the criminal penalties for barratry.)

Probate Court Proceedings

SB 512 - Promulgation of Forms for Use in Probate Matters

· Summary: SB 512, filed by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D - Laredo), would require the Supreme Court to promulgate appropriate forms and instructions for the use of certain forms by individuals representing themselves in certain probate matters or making certain wills, including forms for use in: (1)Aa small estate affidavit proceeding under the Estates Code; (2) the probate of a will as a muniment of title under the Estates Code; and (3) the making of a will for married and unmarried individuals. A similar, though not identical, bill (HB 2196) has been filed in the House by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 512: On March 24, 2015, the full Senate passed SB 512 by a 30-1 vote. SB 512 was sent to the House and referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence, which has scheduled the bill for public hearing on May 12^th at 2:00 p.m. or upon recess/final adjournment of the House. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast. (Senate Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 9, 2015. Those who testified about the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in listening to the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast (audio only) of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 512 begins around the 2:16 mark. A committee substitute was offered to make the bill identical to HB 2196. The bill was unanimously voted out of committee on March 16, 2015.)

· Status of HB 2196: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

Product Liability Claims

HB 1988 - Liability of Manufacturers and Sellers for Misuse of Products

· Summary: HB 1988, filed by Rep. Drew Springer (R - Gainesville), would amend Chapter 82 of the CPRC to address the liability of a product manufacturer or seller for the subsequent misuse of a product. More specifically, the bill would add section 82.0045 to the CPRC and provide that, in a products liability action, a manufacturer or seller would not be liable “for any claim arising out of harm caused by misuse of a product by a person other than the manufacturer or seller.” HB 1988 would also allow the court to, on its own motion and after reasonable notice to the parties, dismiss a claim filed after September 1, 2015, “if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim was caused by misuse of a product by a person other than the manufacturer or the seller.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 12, 2015.

Qualifications for Public Office and Term Limits

SJR 6 - Constitutional Amendment to Provide Qualifications for and Limit the Time that a Person May Serve in Certain Offices

· Summary: SJR 6, filed by Sen. Don Huffines (R – Dallas), proposes a constitutional amendment that would place terms limits on legislators (12 years) and would limit the amount of time that a legislator could serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives or as a committee chair. SJR 6 would also impose term limits on almost the entire Texas judiciary. For example, SJR 6 would bar Supreme Court justices and CCA judges from re-election if they had previously been elected to two full terms; however, the intermediate appellate court justices would not be subject to the term limits imposed under the current version of SJR 6. SJR 6 would also apply to "every district office or office of a political subdivision of this state that is filled by popular election," which appears to include district judges, county court-at-law judges, justices of the peace and county and district attorneys. All would be ineligible for re-election if they had served eight years or more. SJR 6 would become effective in 2016.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 27, 2015.

SJR 24 - Constitutional Amendment Limiting to Two the Number of Consecutive Terms for Which a Person may be Elected or Appointed to Hold Certain State Offices (Companion: HJR 38)

· Summary: SJR 24, filed by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R - Tyler), would prohibit a person who has been elected or appointed to serve two consecutive terms in an office listed in Article IV, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution (i.e., Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Commissioner of the General Land Office, and Attorney General), as well as “any other statewide elective office, other than a statewide judicial office,” from serving for a third consecutive term. However, SJR would not limit a person ’s eligibility for election or appointment to serve nonconsecutive terms. The companion resolution, HJR 38, was filed by Rep. Lyle Larson (R - San Antonio).

· Status of SJR 24: Referred to State Affairs on February 2, 2015.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HJR 38: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 18, 2015. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 38 begins around the 2:07:45 mark. The resolution remains pending.

Survival Actions

HB 3416 - Authority of Certain Persons to Bring a Survival Action

· Summary: HB 3416, filed by Rep. Larry Phillips (R - Sherman), would amend section 71.021 of the CPRC by adding the following section (b-1): “A legal representative of the estate of the injured person may bring the action or, if no action is filed by a legal representative of the estate, one or more heirs may bring the action for the benefit of all heirs and the estate of the injured person.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 17, 2015.

Trial Court Procedure

SB 1534 – Venue in Lawsuits Filed Against the State of Texas or State Agency

· Summary: SB 1534, filed by Rep. Konni Burton (R - Colleyville), would amend the CPRC to add section 15.021, which would provide that a lawsuit against the State of Texas or a state agency may be brought in either Travis County or “a county in which the court of appeals is held for a court of appeals district that includes the county in which the plaintiff: (a) resided at the time of the accrual of the cause of action; or (b) resides at the time the suit is brought.”

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on March 23, 2015.

HB 241 - Substituted Service of Citation Through Social Media

· Summary: HB 241, filed by Rep. Jeff Leach (R - Plano), would add section 17.302 to the CPRC and permit a court to authorize service of process via electronic communication through a “social media presence” if substituted service is authorized under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HB 241 would also require the Supreme Court to promulgate rules to provide for substituted service through social media. Rep. Leach filed a similar bill in 2013 (HB 1989), but it died in committee.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 241 out of committee, without amendment, on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. There was a considerable amount of discussion about the appropriateness of serving a defendant via social media. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 241 begins around the 13:20 mark.)

HB 1692 - Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens (Companion: SB 1942)

· Summary: HB 1692, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would amend section 71.051(e) of the CPRC and provide that, in determining whether a case should be dismissed under the forum non conveniens provisions, the “plaintiff’s choice of a forum…shall be given substantial deference, provided that the plaintiff is a legal resident of the state and the underlying litigation has a significant connection to this state.” HB 1692 would also eliminate the “legal resident” definition and add to the definition of “plaintiff” the following: “an intervenor, beneficiary, next friend, or other derivative party to the plaintiff ’s claim” and “a decedent ’s estate, if the decedent was not a legal resident of this state at the time of death.” The companion bill (SB 1942) was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1692: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1692: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1692: On May 8, 2015, the full House passed HB 1692. (Committee History: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 1692 out of committee by a 5-4 vote. The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Those who testified either for, on, or against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1692 begins around the 4:14:00 mark.)

· Status of SB 1942: Referred to State Affairs on March 25, 2015.

HB 2211 - Agreed Venue Selection in Civil Actions

· Summary: HB 2211, filed by Rep. John Wray (R - Waxahachie), would amend CPRC section 15.020 and require a court to transfer an action to another county if the parties consent to the transfer and the motion to transfer is filed before trial begins.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

Wrongful Life/Birth Causes of Action

HB 1367 - Elimination of Wrongful Life/Birth Causes of Action

· Summary: HB 1367, filed by Rep. Gilbert Pena (R - Pasadena), would amend the CPRC to expressly eliminate “wrongful life” and “wrongful birth” causes of action.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 9, 2015.

HB 3008 - Elimination of Wrongful Birth Cause of Action

· Summary: HB 3008, filed by Rep. Ron Simmons (R - Carrollton), would amend the CPRC to expressly prohibit a cause of action and damages arising on a claim that “but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted.”

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 29^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 3008 out of committee without amendment. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3008 begins around the 3:19:30 mark.

 

As the Legislature enters the last month of the regular session, legislators find themselves one week away from the first of many important end-of-session deadlines. Monday, May 11^th is the last day for House committees to report House bills and joint resolutions, so we are likely to see a lot of House committee activity this week.

Last week, one of the monitored bills, SB 534 (Oath of Persons Admitted to Practice Law in Texas), was passed by the House without amendment, thereby making it the first monitored bill to pass both chambers. Meanwhile, House and Senate committees took public testimony on eight (8) monitored bills and voted six (6) others out of committee. The following four (4) bills were passed by the full Senate and will be sent to the House for consideration: SB 455 (Creation of a Special Three-Judge District Court), SB 735 (Availability and Use of Evidence in Connection with an Award of Exemplary Damages); SB 1116 (Notices or Documents Sent by Mail or Electronic Mail by a Court, Justice, Judge, or Clerk of a Judicial Clerk); and SB 1628 (Insurance Claims and Certain Prohibited Acts and Practices Relating to the Business of Insurance).

As in past updates, I’ve included bill number links in the “The Week in Review” and “The Week Ahead” sections that will take you to the summaries for each bill in the “Monitored Legislation” section.

The Week in Review

The following eight (8) monitored bills received public hearings last week:

SB 534 – Oath of Persons Admitted to Practice Law in Texas

HB 1784 – Construction Defect Claims

HB 2045 – Eligibility of Attorneys Licensed by Another State to Take the State Bar Exam

HB 3008 – Elimination of Wrongful Birth Cause of Action

HB 3364 – Appeals of Judgments in Eviction Suits

HB 3430 – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

HB 3454 – Assignment of Rights in an Individual’s Legal Claim

HB 3641 – Limit on Award of Attorney's Fees in Certain Proceedings against the State or a State Agency

The following six (6) bills were voted out of committee:

HB 1403 – Defining Health Care Liability Claim for Purposes of Certain Claims

HB 2088 – Interim Study Regarding the Method by Which Judges and Justices are Selected

HB 3008 – Elimination of Wrongful Birth Cause of Action

HB 3364 – Appeals of Judgments in Eviction Suits

SB 1600 – Limit on Award of Attorney's Fees in Certain Proceedings against the State or a State Agency

SB 1970 – Increase of Statewide Electronic Filing Fees

The status of each bill, as well as the others that experienced some form of activity last week, have been updated below.

The Week Ahead

The following four (4) monitored bills/resolutions are currently scheduled for public hearing this week:

SB 531 – Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Proceeding involving Marriage, a Suit for Dissolution of a Marriage/Affecting

Parent-Child Relationship

SJR 8 – Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Legislature to Require a Court to Provide Notice to the Attorney General of a Constitutional

Challenge to State Statutes

HB 3176 – Patent Infringement Claims

HJR 90 – Constitutional Amendment to Abolish the Court of Criminal Appeals

Where applicable, the status and summary for each of these bills, as well as all other monitored bills, have been updated.

Monitored Legislation

The subject-matter groupings below that include bills scheduled for hearing have been marked with an “++”. The status of each bill has been updated below and, where appropriate, links to hearing notices, witness lists, bill analyses, video/audio broadcasts, and other related documents have been posted for each bill. (Note: If you would rather jump-down to a category of bills instead of perusing the entire list from top-to-bottom, you can click on the subject heading below.)

Appellate Procedure

Attorney's Fees/Fee Agreements

Attorneys - Practice of Law

Certificate of Merit

Collaborative Law

Constitutional Challenges to Texas Statutes++

Construction Defect Claims

Damages

Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Decisions Based on Foreign Laws (Non-Family Law Proceedings)

Defamation/Libel

Elections

Evictions

Family Law++

Governmental Immunity

Health Care Liability

Insurance

Judicial Selection

Judiciary/Court Administration++

Lawsuit Financing/Lending

Patent Infringement Claims++

Probate Court Proceedings

Product Liability Claims

Qualifications for Public Office/Term Limits

Survival Actions

Trial Court Procedure

Wrongful Birth/Life Causes of Action

Appellate Procedure

HB 1494 - Filing of the Reporter's Record

· Summary: HB 1494, filed by Rep. Bryan Hughes (R - Mineola), would amend section 52.047 of the Government Code to state that a court reporter would not be required to file an official transcript of a trial before the 60^th day after the date a notice of appeal is filed. However, this amendment would not apply to accelerated or interlocutory appeals.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 1494 out of committee without amendment. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1494 begins around the 1:41:00 mark.)

Attorney’s Fees/Fee Agreements

HB 230 - Recovery of Attorney's Fees in Certain Civil Cases

· Summary: HB 230, filed by Rep. Jessica Farrar (D - Houston), would amend Chapter 38.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code (CPRC) to (1) add “other legal entity” to the list of those from whom attorney’s fees can be recovered; and (2) expressly provide that Chapter 38.001 does not authorize the recovery of attorney’s fees from the state, an agency or institution of the state, or a political subdivision. The bill would further provide that the amendment to Chapter 38.001 does not affect any other statute that permits the recovery of attorney’s fees from the governmental entities listed in the statute.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 230 was passed by the full House on April 9^th. (Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 230 begins around the 1:47:30 mark. HB 230 was voted out of committee without amendments on March 17^th.)

HB 247 - Limitations on Certain Actions Arising Out of Attorney's Fee Agreements

· Summary: HB 247, filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would place limitations on claims that could be brought under contingent fee agreements that comply with the statute (i.e., agreements that expressly state the method by which a fee is determined; that litigation and other expenses will be deducted from the recovery; and whether litigation expenses and other expenses are deducted before or after the contingent fee is calculated). The limitations in HB 247 would also apply to contingency fee agreements in which an attorney represents two or more clients and enters into an aggregate settlement agreement of the clients’ claims if the agreement expressly discloses: 1) the existence and nature of all claims or pleas involved; 2) the nature and extent of the participation of each client in the settlement; and 3) the amount of remittance to each client and the method by which the remittance will be determined.

HB 247 would permit a party to bring a claim arising out of an agreement subject to the statute only on the grounds that the agreement was obtained by corruption, coercion, force, fraud, or other undue means, or that the agreement was forged. Further, in a claim arising out of the settlement of matters involving multiple clients that is brought on grounds other than those permitted by HB 247, the settlement will be “irrebuttably presumed” to be: 1) fully disclosed, read, understood, and voluntarily entered into by all parties to the agreement; 2) fair, accepted, reasonable, and made in the best interests of the parties by the parties or through their attorneys; and 3) final and not subject to subsequent litigation.

On the motion of a party, a court will be required to dismiss with prejudice any action involving claims arising out of an agreement that is subject to HB 247 if the action is brought on grounds other than those permitted by HB 247.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 5, 2015.

HB 1531 - Referrals for Legal Services by Legislators and Executive Officers

· Summary: HB 1531, filed by Rep. Charlie Geren (R - Fort Worth), would add section 572.063 to the Government Code and prohibit a member of the legislature or an executive officer elected in a statewide election who is a member of the State Bar of Texas or who is licensed to practice law in another state or a United States territory from making or receiving any referral for legal services for monetary compensation or any other benefit unless the referral complied with State Bar rules and is evidenced by a written contract between the parties who are subject to the referral. A violation of this law would be a Class A misdemeanor. The original version of the bill prohibited referrals without exception.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 2^nd, General Investigating & Ethics voted the committee substitute out of committee and sent the bill to Calendars on April 7^th. (Committee History: General Investigating & Ethics conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2015. No one testified for, against, or on the bill. Only one person registered to take a position on the bill and it was a registration of support. Here is the Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1531 begins around the 2:08:00 mark.)

Attorneys – Practice of Law

SB 534 - Oath of Persons Admitted to Practice Law in Texas (Companions: HB 1644; HB 1909)

· Summary: SB 534, filed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D - Austin), would amend section 82.037 of the Government Code and revise the oath taken by all attorneys admitted to practice law in Texas so as to require attorneys to conduct themselves “with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties.” Companion bills, HB 1644 and 1909, were filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo) and Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi) respectively.

· Bill Analysis for SB 534: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 534: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 534: On April 30^th, after having been considered by and voted out of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 28^th, the full House passed SB 534 without amendment, thereby making it eligible for the Governor to sign the bill into law. The Senate had unanimously passed SB 534 on March 24^th. (Committee History: On March 2, 2015, State Affairs conducted a hearing on SB 534. All who appeared before the committee, including representatives from the Texas Trial Lawyers Association (TTLA), the Texas Association of Defense Counsel (TADC), and the Texas Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates (TEX-ABOTA), testified in support of the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 534 begins around the 44:55 mark. The bill was unanimously voted out of committee).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1644: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1644: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1644: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 1644 out of committee without amendment. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 24, 2015. Several testified in support of the bill. No one opposed it. Those who testified are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1644 begins around the 1:02:35 mark.)

SB 765 - Repeal of Occupation Tax (Companion: HB 2089)

· Summary: SB 765, filed by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R - Tyler), would repeal the $200 annual attorney occupation tax, as well as other occupation taxes on licensed professionals. The companion bill, HB 2089, was filed by Rep. Drew Darby (R - San Angelo), but multiple representatives have joined in on the bill.

· Bill Analysis for SB 765: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 765: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 765: Senate Finance conducted a hearing on many “tax relief” bills, including SB 765, on March 3, 2015. Public testimony was taken on March 4^th. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcasts of the hearings: Senate Archived Broadcasts (March 3rd) and Senate Archived Video (Public Testimony - March 4th) . Testimony about SB 765 at the March 3^rd hearing begins around the 10:45 mark; public testimony at the March 4^th hearing begins around the 1:19:20 mark. Here is the list of witnesses who testified about the bill: Witness List. The bill remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for HB 2089: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 2089: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2089: On April 23, 2015, the House unanimously passed HB 2089. The bill was received by the Senate and referred to Senate Finance on April 28^th. (Committee History: Licensing & Administrative Procedures conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Several testified or registered in support of the bill. No one opposed it. Those who testified or registered in support of HB 2089 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony on HB 2089 begins around the 2:07:25 mark. The committee approved a committee substitute for HB 2089 and voted it out of committee on April 6, 2015.)

SB 1430 – Eligibility of Attorneys Licensed Outside of State to Take Bar Exam (Companion: HB 2045)

· Summary: SB 1430, filed by Sen. Bob Hall (R - Rockwall), would amend the Government Code by adding section 82.025 and would permit an attorney licensed to practice law in another state to take the Texas bar examination regardless of whether the attorney has completed the study of law in an approved law school if the attorney: (1) is a United States citizen; and (2) satisfies all other requirements to be licensed in Texas. The companion bill, HB 2045, was filed by Rep. James White (R - Woodville).

· Status of SB 1430: Referred to State Affairs on March 18, 2015.

· Fiscal Note for HB 2045: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2045: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 2045 begins around the 49:20 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 2624 - Effects of Default on a Student Loan Administered by Higher Education Coordinating Board on License Renewals

· Summary: HB 2624, filed by Rep. Chris Turner (D - Arlington/Grand Prairie), would amend the Education Code to prevent licensed professionals (including licensed attorneys) who are in default on student loans administered by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) from having their professional licenses renewed. Under the bill, THCEB would receive a list of licensees from the applicable licensing board/agency to determine if any of the licensees are in default on their loans and then send a default list back to the licensing board/agency. A person who was in default could enter a repayment plan with the THECB, at which time the licensing board/agency could still renew the license as long as the licensee was current on repayments. The licensing agency would have to provide a hearing before non-renewing a license. Under HB 2624, the licensing board/agency would create its own rules to carry out the bill's provisions. The bill specifically requires the Supreme Court to create the rules for non-renewing law licenses.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 1^st, HB 2624 was voted out of committee without amendments and was recommended for the Local & Consent calendar. (Committee History: Higher Education conducted a public hearing on March 25, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2624 begins around the 26:50 mark.)

Certificate of Merit

HB 1353 - Certificates of Merit for Certain Professionals (Companion: SB 1579)

· Summary: HB 1353, filed by Rep. Charlie Geren (R - Fort Worth), would add a definition of “claimant” to CPRC section 150.001, which is the statute that requires a person to file an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor with a claim for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional. For purposes of the statute, “claimant” would mean a party, including a plaintiff, counter-claimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff, seeking recovery of damages. The current statute uses only the undefined term “plaintiff.” The companion bill, SB 1579, was filed by Sen. Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay).

· Status of HB 1353: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 17, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1353 begins around the 10:00 mark.

· Status of SB 1579: Referred to State Affairs on March 23, 2015.

Collaborative Law

HB 2512 - Adoption of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act

· Summary: HB 2512, filed by Rep. Bill Zedler (R - Arlington), would add Chapter 160 to the CPRC and adopt the Uniform Collaborative Law Act in order to clarify rules about the mechanics of collaborative law. Collaborative law is a voluntary process that is intended to provide for a form of limited scope representation in which an attorney is retained solely for the purpose of reaching a settlement, and expressly not for the purpose of litigation.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either for, on, or against the bill. Two individuals/attorneys testified in favor of HB 2512. Representatives from TTLA, TADC, and TEX-ABOTA all testified against it. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 2512 begins around the 2:50:00 mark. The bill remains pending,

Constitutional Challenges to Texas Statutes

SJR 8 - Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Legislature to Require a Court to Provide Notice to the Attorney General of a Constitutional Challenge to State Statutes

· Summary: SJR 8, filed by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D - Laredo), would amend the Texas Constitution to specifically authorize the Legislature to (1) require a court to notify the attorney general of a challenge to the constitutionality of a Texas statute, and (2) prescribe a reasonable period after notice is provided during which the court may not enter a judgment holding a statute unconstitutional. [Note: SJR 8 is the legislative response to the 2013 decision by the CCA holding that section 402.010(a)-(b) of the Government Code, which prevents a court from entering a final judgment until the AG is notified of a constitutional challenge to a statute, violated the separation-of-powers principles set forth in the Texas Constitution]. As you may recall, the Legislature passed legislation in 2011 (HB 2425) amending the Government Code to require courts to notify the AG when constitutional challenges to state statutes were raised. The law was amended in 2013 to place the burden of notifying the court of the pleading that should be served on the AG on the party raising the constitutional challenge (SB 392).

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Scheduled for public hearing in front of State Affairs on May 4, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing Senate Live Broadcast.

Construction Defect Claims

HB 1784 - Construction Defect Claims

· Summary: HB 1784, filed by Rep. Paul Workman (R - Austin), would amend section 41.015 of the CPRC to establish a 10-year statute of repose for construction defect claims against the person who actually designed, administered, constructed, or repaired an improvement to real property. The statute of repose would apply only to the actual costs incurred in curing a construction defect and the amount of damages for cost to cure would be reduced by 10% on each anniversary date of substantial completion of the construction of repair that occurs before the date the action is filed. An award of exemplary damages, multiplied damages, or other damages computed on the basis of the amount of damages for the cost to cure the defect would have to reflect any reduction made under section 41.015.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Construction industry representatives testified in support of HB 1784, while TTLA and representatives of the cities of Fort Worth and Austin opposed the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1784 begins around the 1:53:20 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but has yet to be posted. The bill was left pending.

Damages

HB 419 - Federal Income Tax Liability for Damages Awarded in Civil Actions

· Summary: HB 419, filed by Rep. Gene Wu (D – Houston), would amend Chapter 41 of the CPRC to require a defendant to compensate a claimant for federal income tax liability arising out of a damages award.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either against or on the bill, most of which (all insurance and/or contractor representatives) were against it. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 419 begins around the 1:39:00 mark. A committee substitute was proposed that reportedly includes a 2-year limitation period for defendants to be liable for compensation under this bill, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

HB 820 - Liability for Damages Arising from Certain Motor Vehicle Accidents

· Summary: HB 820, filed by Rep. Ed Thompson (R - Pearland), would amend the CPRC by adding Chapter 72A, which would prevent an uninsured driver who was in a car accident from recovering exemplary and noneconomic damages in a lawsuit for bodily injury, death or property damage. The same prohibition would apply to derivative claims arising out of the accident, such as claims for wrongful death or loss of consortium or companionship. However, the prohibition would not apply to claims brought by the uninsured driver in a representative capacity (e.g., as next friend if the uninsured driver’s minor child was injured) or if the at-fault driver was driving drunk, acted willfully or was grossly negligent, had fled the scene, or was committing a felony when the accident happened.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 3, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups registered to testify both for and against HB 820: Witness List. TTLA and Texas Watch provided oral testimony in opposition to the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 820 begins around the 3:30 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but the bill remains pending.

HB 969 - Availability and Use of Certain Evidence in Connection with an Award of Exemplary Damages (Companion: SB 735)

· Summary: The original version of HB 969, filed by Rep. Ken King (R - Hemphill), sought to amend section 41.011 of the CPRC and eliminate “the net worth of defendant” as one of the elements considered in determining the amount of exemplary damages. However, the committee substitute approved by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee does two different things: (1) it would define “net worth” to mean “the total assets of a person minus the total liabilities of the person on a date determined appropriate by the trial court;” and (2) it would add section 41.0115 to the CPRC and would provider as follows:

“Sec. 41.0115. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OF NET WORTH FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CLAIM. (a) On the motion of a party and after notice and a hearing, a trial court may authorize discovery of evidence of a defendant's net worth if the court finds in a written order that the claimant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages. Evidence submitted by a party to the court in support of or in opposition to a motion made under this subsection may be in the form of an affidavit or a response to discovery. (b) If a trial court authorizes discovery under Subsection (a), the court's order may only authorize use of the least burdensome method available to obtain the net worth evidence. (c) When reviewing an order authorizing or denying discovery of net worth evidence under this section, the reviewing court may consider only the evidence submitted by the parties to the trial court in support of or in opposition to the motion described by Subsection (a).”

The companion to the original bill, SB 735, was filed by Sen. Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay).

· Bill Analysis for HB 969: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 969: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 969: By a 5-4 vote, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted the committee substitute for HB 969 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified or registered either for, on or against HB 969. Representatives from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and businesses/organizations were in favor of the bill. A TTLA representative testified against the bill. A TADC representative also testified, but did not take a position on HB 969. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 969 begins around the 3:30:35 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 735: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 735: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 735: By a 20-11 vote, the full Senate passed SB 735 on April 28, 2015. (Committee History: By a 7-2 vote, State Affairs voted SB 735 out of committee on April 22, 2015. The committee conducted a public hearing on April 13, 2015. Several witnesses testified or registered either for, on or against SB 735. Representatives from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and businesses/organizations were in favor of the bill. A TTLA representative testified against the bill. A TADC representative testified, but did not take a position on SB 735. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 735 begins around the 2:37:40 mark.)

Deceptive Trade Practices Act

HB 2898 - Relating to Certain DTPA Procedures, Civil Penalties, and Remedies

· Summary: HB 2898, filed by Rep. Sarah Davis (R - Houston), would amend sections 17.45(9) and (13) of the Business & Commerce Code in order to modify the definitions of “intentionally” and “knowingly” and certain portions of the provisions related to the consumer protection division of the AG’s office (i.e., sections 17.47, 17.60, and 17.61). More specifically, HB 2898 would (a) substitute the phrase “misleading nature” for the word “unfairness” in the “knowingly” definition in section 17.45(9); and (b) change the definition of “intentionally” to read as follows:

(13) "Intentionally" means actual awareness, at the time of the act or practice complained of, of the falsity, deception, or misleading nature [unfairness] of the act or practice giving rise to the consumer ’s claim [,] or the condition, defect, or failure constituting a breach of warranty giving rise to the consumer’s claim, coupled with the specific intent that the consumer act in detrimental reliance on the act, practice, condition, defect, or failure [falsity or deception or in detrimental ignorance of the unfairness]. Intention may be inferred from objective manifestations that indicate that the person acted intentionally or from facts showing that a defendant acted with flagrant disregard of prudent and fair business practices to the extent that the defendant should be treated as having acted intentionally.

The remaining changes specifically relate to the enforcement provisions applicable to the AG’s office.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 17, 2015.

Decisions Based on Foreign Laws (Non-Family Law Proceedings)

HB 670 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Texas (Related Constitutional Amendment: HJR 32)

· Summary: HB 670 and HJR 32, filed by Rep. Dan Flynn (R - Canton), are similar to bills and related resolutions filed in 2011 and 2013 that failed to pass. HB 670 and HJR 32 would prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing “a ruling or decision” on “a foreign law,” or otherwise enforcing contract provisions that either require the application of a foreign law to a dispute or require parties to litigate their dispute in a forum outside of the United States if such provisions would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Texas Constitution.

· Fiscal Note for HB 670/HJR 32: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 670: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Several individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 670 begins around the 1:31:40 mark. HB 670 remains pending.

· Status of HJR 32: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Numerous individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 32 begins around the 1:02:35 mark. On April 16, 2015, the committee voted on the bill but it failed to pass out of committee.

HB 828 - Application of Foreign or International Laws or Doctrines

· Summary: HB 828, filed by Rep. Bill Zedler (R - Arlington), would prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing “a ruling or decision” on either “a foreign or international law or doctrine” or “a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.” HB 828 would also require a court to “uphold and apply the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, federal laws, and the laws of this state, including the doctrine that is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and known as the church autonomy doctrine.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on February 23, 2015.

Defamation/Libel

SB 627 - Relating to Certain Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for a Libel Action (Companion: HB 1766)

· Summary: SB 627, filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston), would amend Chapter 73 of the CPRC (Defamation Mitigation Act) to add the “publication of allegations made by a third party regarding matters of public concern, regardless of the truth or falsity of the allegations” to the list of publications that are privileged and not grounds for a libel action. It would also add the following sections: “[t]his section does not abrogate or lessen any other defense, remedy, immunity, or privilege available under other constitutional, statutory, case, or common law or rule provisions” and “[t]his section shall be construed liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent fully.” The companion bill (HB 1766) was filed by Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi).

· Bill Analysis for SB 627: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 627: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 627: On April 22, 2015, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 627. The bill was subsequently sent to the House and has been referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence. (Senate Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 2, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups testifying for and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 627 begins around the 1:35:55 mark. On April 15, 2015, State Affairs approved a committee substitute for SB 627, which sought to further clarify that a journalist accurately reporting on third party allegations regarding matters of public concern could use the accuracy of such reporting as a defense to libel.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 1766: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1766: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1766: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted a committee substitute for HB 1766 out of committee on April 23, 2015. The committee substitute makes the bill identical to the version adopted by the Senate. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups that either testified or registered a position on HB 1766: Witness List. TTLA, TLR, and the Texas Association of Broadcasters were among those who either testified or registered as being for the bill. No one testified against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1766 begins around the 2:45 mark.)

HB 4116 - Defense to Libel Actions

· Summary: HB 4116, filed by Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi), would amend section 73.005 of the CPRC by adding subsections (b) and (c), which would result in section 73.005 reading as follows:

Sec. 73.005. TRUTH A DEFENSE. (a) The truth of the statement in a publication on which a libel action is based is a defense to the action. (b) Subject to subsection (c), it is a defense to a libel action that the publication accurately reported the allegations of a third party regarding a matter of public concern. (c) Subsection (b) does not apply if: (i) the publication was made with actual malice; and (ii) the fact that the allegation was made is not itself a matter of public concern.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Elections

HB 25 - Elimination of Straight Ticket Voting for Judicial Offices (Companion: SB 1702)

· Summary: HB 25, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would eliminate straight ticket voting for judicial offices. HB 25 is virtually identical to SB 103 filed last session, which was voted out of committee but never was put to a vote before the full Senate. The companion bill, SB 1702, was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Fiscal Note for HB 25 / SB 1702: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 25: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Very few individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. Those who did testify (or registered a position on the bill) are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 25 begins around the 5:40 mark. HB 25 remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for SB 1702: Senate Research Center

· Status of SB 1702: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Most witnesses who testified about the bill opposed it. Those who did testify (or registered a position without testifying) are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Broadcast Archive. Testimony about SB 1702 begins around the 1:42:00 mark. SB 1702 remains pending.

HB 1444 - Elimination of Straight-Party Voting in Certain Counties

· Summary: HB 1444, filed by Rep. Jason Villalba (R - Dallas), would amend section 52.071 of the Election Code to eliminate straight ticket voting for judicial offices and local executive offices in counties with a population over 1,000,000.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 5, 2015.

HB 2754 - Filing Requirements for Candidates for Certain Judicial Offices

· Summary: HB 2754, filed by Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R - Southlake), would repeal sections 172.021(e) and (g) of the Elections Code, which would eliminate the petition requirement for certain judicial candidates. Specifically, under HB 2754, candidates for the following judicial offices would no longer have to include a petition with their application and fee to get on the general primary election ballot:

o Chief Justice or justice of the Supreme Court;

o Presiding Judge or judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals;

o Chief justice or justice of a court of appeals in an appellate district in which a county with a population of more than one million is wholly or partly situated;

o district or criminal district judge of a court in a judicial district wholly contained in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million;

o judge of a statutory county court in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million; and

o justice of the peace in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million.

A similar (though not identical) bill (HB 3880) has been filed by Rep. Craig Goldman (R - Fort Worth). A public hearing was held in front of Elections at the same time as HB 2754. The committee voted HB 3880 out of committee on April 16, 2015 without amendment.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16, 2015, Elections voted HB 2754 out of committee (by a 6-0 vote, one absent) without amendments. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Those who testified are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2754 begins around the 3:14:00 mark.)

Evictions

HB 3364 - Appeals of Eviction Suit Judgments

· Summary: HB 3364, filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston), would amend section 24.007 of the Property Code to prohibit appeals of county court judgments in eviction suits on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only. HB 3364 would add back in to section 24.007(a) the same language that was removed from the statute in 2011. The bill would also repeal section 24.007(b), which was enacted in 2011 and authorizes appeals of final judgments of a county court, statutory county court, statutory probate court, or district court in an eviction suit.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015 and unanimously voted it out of committee on April 29^th. No witnesses testified on HB 3364; however, a few witnesses registered as being for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3364 begins around the 3:48:15 mark. The bill was left pending.

Family Law

HB 562 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Proceeding involving Marriage, a Suit for Dissolution of a Marriage/Affecting Parent-Child Relationship (Companion: SB 531)

· Summary: The committee substitute for the original version of HB 562, filed by Rep. Jeff Leach (R - Plano), would prohibit a court or arbitrator in a family law matter from making a ruling or decision based on a foreign law if the application of that law would be “contrary to the public policy of [Texas].” Under the bill, the application of a law would be contrary to public policy if it would: (1) violate a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution; (2) violate a fundamental right guaranteed by the Texas constitution; (3) violate good morals or natural justice; or (4) be prejudicial to the general interests of the citizens of Texas. The companion bill to the original version of HB 562 (SB 531) was filed by Sen. Donna Campbell (R - New Braunfels). SB 531 is similar to HB 899, which is summarized below.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status for HB 562: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 562, as amended, out of committee by a 7-2 vote. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Numerous individuals either testified for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 562 begins around the 1:59:20 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 531: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 531: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status for SB 531: Scheduled for public hearing in front of State Affairs on May 4, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing Senate Live Broadcast

HB 899 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Certain Family Law Proceedings

· Summary: Like HB 670, HB 899, filed by Rep. Pat Fallon (R - Little Elm), is similar to failed bills filed in prior sessions that would prohibit a court or arbitrator in suits involving the dissolution of a marriage from making a ruling or decision based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or a Texas statute.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 899 was scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, the bill was pulled so no action was taken.

SB 1090 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in a Marriage/Divorce Proceeding or a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (Companion Bill: HB 3943)

· Summary: SB 1090, filed by Sen. Bob Hall (R - Rockwall), is similar to HB 562 (discussed above). The primary difference between SB 1090 and HB 562 is that SB 1090 would amend the Family Code to strictly prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing a decision on a foreign law and from enforcing a contract provision involving a marriage or parent-child relationship that is based on a foreign law, regardless of whether the provision is substantive or procedural (i.e., forum selection or governing law clauses). SB 1090 does not limit the prohibition to only those instances in which the application of the foreign law violates a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or a Texas statute. The companion bill, HB 3943, was filed by Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R - Irving).

· Status of SB 1090: Referred to State Affairs on March 16, 2015.

HB 1195 - Disclosure by an Attorney Before Accepting Representation in a Marriage Dissolution Proceeding

· Summary: HB 1195, filed by Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R - Houston), would require an attorney to disclose certain information to a prospective client before agreeing to represent that client in a divorce proceeding. More specifically, HB 1195 would amend the Family Code to require: (1) the attorney to provide a prospective client with a disclosure form promulgated by the State Bar of Texas (SBOT); and (2) the client to acknowledge in writing that the client has received and understands the disclosure. The disclosure must include information about arbitration, mediation, collaborative law, and alternatives to retaining an attorney for the dissolution of a marriage, as well as any other information that the SBOT may require. HB 1195 is essentially the same bill that Rep. Bohac filed in 2013 (HB 3470), which died in committee.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: The committee on Juvenile Justice & Family Issues voted HB 1195 out of committee (without amendments) on April 8^th and sent it to Calendars on April 14^th. (Committee History: The committee had conducted a public hearing on March 25, 2015. A representative of the Texas Family Law Foundation testified in opposition to HB 1195. No other witnesses testified, but several individuals registered their position on the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1195 begins around the 22:35:00 mark.)

Governmental Immunity

HB 2375 - Liability of a Governmental Unit for Personal Injury and Death Caused by the Governmental Unit’s Negligence

· Summary: HB 2375, filed by Rep. Harold Dutton, Jr. (D - Houston), would amend section 101.021(2) of the CPRC and waive immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) for acts of employees that cause personal injury or death due to “the negligence of the governmental unit” if the governmental unit would otherwise be liable if it were a private person. Under HB 2375, negligence arising from “a condition or use of tangible personal or real property” would be eliminated from the TTCA.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

SB 1600 - Limit on Award of Attorney's Fees in Certain Proceedings against the State or State Agency (Companion: HB 3641)

· Summary: SB 1600, filed by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R - Brenham), would amend the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA) and limit the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in cases seeking declaratory relief against the state or a state agency to an amount “not to exceed to exceed $250,000.” The companion bill, HB 3641, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo),

· Bill Analysis for SB 1600: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB1600: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1600: On April 29^th, by a 7-1 vote, State Affairs voted SB 1600 out of committee. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 20, 2015. Several witnesses registered a position on the bill. TTLA and the Texas NAACP were among those organizations registering their opposition to the bill while TLR and the Texas Conservative Coalition registered as being in favor of the bill. A representative from the Attorney General’s Office was the only testifying witness. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1600 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1600 begins around the 32:20 mark.

· Fiscal Note for HB 3641: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 3641: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Only a representative from the Attorney General’s Office testified on HB 3641. A representative of TLR registered as being for the bill while TTLA registered as being opposed to the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3641 begins around the 3:55:20 mark. The bill was left pending.

Health Care Liability

HB 956 - Scope of a Health Care Liability Claim

· Summary: HB 956, filed by Rep. Chris Turner (D - Arlington/Grand Prairie), is similar to the bill filed by Rep. Turner that failed to pass in 2013 (i.e., HB 2644). It is the legislative response to a series of Supreme Court cases addressing the scope of “health care liability claims” under the Texas Medical Liability Act, including Texas West Oaks Hospital, L.P. v. Williams. Specifically, HB 956 would amend the terms “claimant” and “health care liability claim” in Chapter 74 of the CPRC in an effort to “clarify” the meaning of those terms. Specifically, the term “claimant” would mean a “patient, including a deceased patient’s estate”, instead of “person, including a decedent’s estate.” The term “claimant” would include “both the patient and the party seeking recovery of damages” in cases in which “a party seeks recovery of damages related to injury of another person who is a patient, or other harm to the patient.” The bill would also amend the definition of “health care liability claim” to specify that such claims arise from “treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety directly related to health care…” [emphasis added] and that the term “does not include claims arising from an injury to or death of a person who is not a patient, including employment and premises liability claims.”

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 956 was scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, the bill was pulled so no action was taken.

HB 1403 - Defining Health Care Liability Claim for Purposes of Certain Claims

· Summary: HB 1403, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would amend the definition of “health care liability claim” in Chapter 74 of the CPRC to not include a personal injury claim filed against an employer by an employee not covered by worker’s compensation insurance or the employee’s surviving spouse or heir. The committee substitute for HB 1403 that was adopted by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee would also require the expert report required under 74.351(a) to “address at least one theory of direct liability asserted against each physician or health care provider against whom a theory of direct liability is asserted.”

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted a committee substitute for HB 1403 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either for or against the bill. Representatives from TLR and the Texas Nurses Association testified for HB 1403. TTLA testified against the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 1403 begins around the 11:10:45 mark.)

Insurance Claims

SB 1166 - Recovery of Damages for Delayed Payment of Certain Insurance Claims

· Summary: SB 1166, filed by Sen. Van Taylor (R - Plano), would amend the “Prompt Payment of Claims” section of the Insurance Code to provide additional instances in which an insurer would not be liable for damages due to a delay in paying on a first party claim. Under SB 1166, the damages-for-delay provisions would not apply if: (1) the amount of damages awarded as a result of arbitration or litigation is less than 80 percent of a settlement offer (as defined by section 42.001 of the CPRC) made by an insurer and rejected by the claimant; (2) a claimant fails to provide an affidavit of damages as defined by SB 1166; or (3) the insurer pays to the claimant the amount of damages awarded as a result of an appraisal no later than the 15th business day after the date the damages are awarded in the appraisal.

The “affidavit of damages” provisions in SB 1166 would require a claimant to provide an insurer with an affidavit containing the dollar amount of all damages the claimant intends to seek in a suit no later than the 30th day before the date the claimant commences the suit against the insurer. However, if a claimant ultimately seeks damages that exceed the amount in the claimant’s affidavit, the claimant would be required to provide the insurer with written notice of the excess amount by affidavit no later than the 15th day before the date the claimant files a pleading seeking the excess amount.

Under SB 1166, a claimant could also file a claim seeking damages as a “small claims case” (as provided by section 27.060 of the Government Code) if the disputed amount of the insurance claim does not exceed the maximum amount allowed for a small claims case as determined by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the total amount awarded in an action filed as a small claims case may not exceed two times the disputed amount of the claim. If a suit seeking damages is filed as a small claims case as provided by the Government Code, an insurer may elect to waive the insurer’s right to appeal no later than the 15th day after the date the suit is filed against the insurer.

Finally, SB 1166 would also amend section 542.060 of the Insurance Code to modify the damages provisions of that section. In addition to paying the amount of the claim, an insurer would be liable for interest only on the “disputed amount” of the claim, for reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, and, in small claims cases, for court costs if the insurer did not waive its right to appeal any judgment entered in the small claims case. SB 1166 would also add the following to the damages section of the “Prompt Payment of Claims” section of the Insurance Code: (1) the court will determine the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, but the amount of attorney’s fees must bear a reasonable relationship to the damages awarded by the trier of fact based on the disputed amount of the claim; (2) any interest awarded would begin to accrue on the date the claimant provided the affidavit of damages; and (3) an attorney cannot share attorney’s fees awarded with the claimant.

· Bill Status: Referred to Business & Commerce on March 17, 2015.

HB 3646 - Insurance Claims and Certain Prohibited Acts and Practices Relating to the Business of Insurance (Companion: SB 1628)

· Summary: HB 3646, filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo), would amend various sections of the Insurance Code to do, among other things, the following:

o The definition of “person” would no longer include an adjuster or any third-party individual or entity “engaged by an insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.”

o An insurer would be “solely responsible” for any “unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance” committed by an individual employed by the insurer as an adjuster or a third-party individual or entity engaged by the insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.

o An insured seeking damages in an action against an insurer would be required to provide written notice to the insurer at least 61 days prior to filing suit that includes a sworn statement containing the following information: (1) the specific damage items and the amount alleged to be owed by the insurer; (2) the amount of attorney’s fees the insured reasonably incurred in asserting the claim against the insurer; and (3) the amount that the insured will accept in full and final satisfaction of the claim. If the sworn statement included damage amounts sought by the insured not previously submitted to the insurer, the notice must contain: (1) a sworn statement signed by the insured stating the specific damage items, the amount alleged to be owed by the insured, and the reason the damage items were not previously submitted to the insurer; (2) copies of reports, estimates, photographs, and other items reasonably supporting the insured ’s additional damage items; (3) a statement that the insured will cooperate in allowing the insurer to inspect the insured property for purposes of investigating the additional damage items; (4) the amount of attorney’s fees the insured reasonably incurred in asserting the claim against the insurer; and (5) a stated amount that the insured will accept in full and final satisfaction of the claim.

o Establish a requirement in which a failure to provide requisite notice prior to filing suit would, in certain circumstances, be subject to dismissal.

o Establish a 2-year statute of limitations for providing notice to an insurer of certain claims for damages to or loss of real property or tangible personal property.

The companion bill, SB 1628, was filed by Sen. Larry Taylor (R - Friendswood).

· Fiscal Note for HB 3646: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 3646: Insurance conducted a public hearing on April 22, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups registered to testify for HB 3646, but the witness list has yet to be posted. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 3646 begins around the 3:27:55 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for SB 1628: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1628: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1628: On April 30^th, the full Senate passed SB 1628 by a 21-10 vote. (Committee History: Business & Commerce voted a committee substitute for SB 1628 out of committee on April 20, 2015. The committee conducted its first public hearing on SB 1628 on March 31, 2015. Many witnesses either testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. Most of those who testified were against the bill; most who registered a position without testifying supported the bill. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1628 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1628 begins around the 1:50:40 mark.

A public hearing on the committee substitute for SB 1628 was conducted on April 14, 2015. Much like the first hearing, many witnesses either testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1628 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1628 begins around the 6:20 mark.)

HB 3697 - Texas Department of Insurance Study of Claims Data and Recovery of Attorney's Fees in First Party Claims

· Summary: HB 3697, filed by Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R - Odessa), would section 542.062 of the Insurance Code and limit the recovery of attorney's fees in first party insurance claims to an amount equal to the recoverable economic damages. Under HB 3697, the Department of Insurance would be required to research and evaluate claims data made in the past five years to compare and establish an understanding between first party claims made, legal actions filed by claimants to recover damages, and complaints made by claimants to the Department, if any.

· Bill Status: Referred to Insurance on March 19, 2015.

HB 3822 - Recovery under Uninsured/Underinsured Insurance Coverage (Companion: HB 3533)

· Summary: HB 3822, filed by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D - Houston), would amend the Insurance Code by adding provisions that prohibit an insurer from requiring, as a prerequisite to asserting an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim, a judgment or other legal determination establishing the other motorist's liability or uninsured/underinsured status. Further, a judgment or other legal determination would not be a prerequisite to asserting a claim for unfair/deceptive acts or practices or for violations of the prompt payment of claims provisions of the Insurance Code. Under HB 3822, an insurer would be required to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim once liability and damages have become reasonably clear.

Also, under HB 3822, prejudgment interest would begin to accrue on the earlier of: (1) the 180th day after the date the claimant notifies the insurer of the claim; or (2) the date on which suit is filed against the insurer to recover uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. Further, for purposes of recovering attorney's fees under section 38.002 of the CPRC, a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage would be considered presented when the insurer receives notice of the claim.

The companion bill, HB 3533, was filed by Rep. Sergio Munoz, Jr. (D - Mission).

· Status of HB 3822: Referred to Insurance on March 23, 2015.

· Status of HB 3533: Referred to Insurance on March 18, 2015.

Judicial Selection

HB 2088 - Interim Study Regarding the Method by Which Judges and Justices are Selected

· Summary: HB 2088, filed by Rep. Justin Rodriguez (D - San Antonio), would create a joint interim committee on judicial selection (consisting a five (5) members from both the House and Senate) to study and review the method by which district and appellate justices/judges are selected for office. The joint committee would be required to report its findings and recommendation to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the House by January 6, 2017. HB 2088 is similar to HB 2772 that passed last session and was signed by Governor; however, the joint committee never met and a report was never generated.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 29^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 2088 out of committee. The committee had conducted a public hearing on the bill on April 21, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups that either testified or registered a position on HB 2088: Witness List. No one testified against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2088 begins around the 1:35:45 mark.

Judiciary/Court Administration

HB 1 / SB 2 - Appropriations Bills (Appellate Court Budget Only)

· Summary/Status: On April 1, 2015, the House voted (141-5) to pass its budget, which appropriated $793 million for the judiciary during the next biennium and included the above-referenced appropriations as recommended by the Appropriations Committee: CSHB 1 (the section of CSHB 1 related to the judiciary is located at pp. 485-528). The $793 million for the judiciary is $32 million more than proposed in the original budget and an almost 4% increase over the last biennium. The House-approved budget includes funding for the following:

· Basic Civil Legal Services – The Supreme Court would receive $61.4 million over the next biennium for basic civil legal services, of which $10 million would be dedicated for legal aid for sexual assault victims and $1.75 million for veterans.

· EFileTexas.gov – The Office of Court Administration (OCA) would receive $28.8 million for the biennium for EFileTexas.gov, which would be funded by $14.4 million collected each year from the $20 e-filing fee that litigants pay when they file civil lawsuits. OCA would also receive in excess of $900,000 each fiscal year to establish four new child protection courts.

· “Similar Funding for Same Size Courts” Block Grant – The intermediate appellate courts would receive the additional $6.4 million dollars needed to fund the remaining half of the “similar funding for same size courts” block grant.

On April 9^th, the Senate Finance Committee considered the House’s budget and approved (unanimously) a committee substitute that mirrored the Senate’s version of the budget. The Senate’s version of the budget was approved by the full Senate on April 14^th. A conference committee has been appointed to reconcile the differences between the two budgets.

The preliminary House and Senate budgets for 2016 and 2017 included slight funding cuts for the judiciary. As originally filed, the House would appropriate $761.5 million to the judiciary for the biennium, a 0.3 percent decrease compared with the last budget. The Senate would give the judiciary $753.1 million, a 1.4 percent decrease.

The Supreme Court asked for additional funds in order to do, among other things, the following: (1) provide raises for staff attorneys, non-legal staff and clerks, as well as provide an increase in the travel budget for Supreme Court committees; and (2) provide legal services for veterans. The intermediate appellate courts jointly requested an additional $6.4 million dollars to fulfill the remaining half of their request for funds under the “similar funding for same size courts” model. [Note: Last session, the 83^rd Legislature passed a budget that included additional funding for intermediate appellate courts that represented half of the funding originally requested by the courts under the “similar funding for same size courts” model. The additional funds were used, in part, to provide targeted salary increases for legal and non-legal staff at the courts to restore some salaries and staff positions, as well as operating costs that were cut in previous fiscal years.] Further, in addition to the similar-funding-for-same-size-courts funds, the Austin and Fort Worth courts requested funds to hire more staff attorneys to help manage their respective caseloads.

Following the recommendations of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Articles I, IV & V, the full Appropriations Committee adopted the Subcommittee's Recommendations that included (1) additional funds for the Supreme Court to provide raises for legal staff and to provide basic civil legal services to veterans and sexual assault victims and (2) the intermediate appellate courts’ request for the additional $6.4 million dollars needed to fund the remaining half of the “similar funding for same size courts” block grant. A Senate Finance subcommittee has also accepted the Supreme Court’s and intermediate appellate courts’ request for these additional funds.

SB 64 - Appellate Court Procedures and Deadlines in Civil Actions

· Summary: SB 64, which is also known as the “Appellate Court Accountability Act”, was filed by Sen. Don Huffines (R – Dallas). SB 64 would establish deadlines for the Supreme Court and intermediate courts of appeals to act on civil appeals.

Supreme Court Deadlines

SB 64 would give the Supreme Court ninety (90) days from the date of filing to deny a petition for review if the court does not request a response and one hundred eighty (180) days if it does not request briefing. The Court would be required to grant or deny the petition no later than three hundred (300) days after the petition is filed if the Court requests briefing. If the Court determined that the issues presented in a petition were related to issues in another case for which a petition has been granted and a decision pending, it could place the petition on hold until the Court decided the prior case. At such time, the Court would be required to publish the names of the parties to the petitions and the issues the Court has determined to be related. Once a decision has been issued in the case for which a petition was placed on hold, the Court would have thirty (30) days to grant or deny the petition.

The bill would also require the Supreme Court to issue a decision for all cases in which the Court grants a petition during the ”term of court” (i.e., the State’s fiscal year) in which the petition for review was granted. If a petition is granted in June or later, the Court could carry the case into the next term under “extraordinary circumstances” but must explain the nature of the “extraordinary circumstances” in the order granting the petition. Any case carried over would have to be decided no later than December 31^st of the next term.

SB 64 would also require the Court to adopt written procedures that allocate responsibilities to individual justices. The chief justice would be required to enforce the procedures and deadlines against individual justices. Such enforcement options would include prohibiting a justice from participating in future oral arguments, reassigning opinions, prohibiting a justice from participating in a new case, and referring a justice to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Intermediate Appellate Court Deadlines

SB 64 would require the courts of appeals to announce whether oral argument has been granted in a civil appeal no later than sixty (60) days after the “final brief” is filed. Oral argument must be held no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the date the final brief has been filed, and the court must issue its decision no later than ninety (90) days after oral argument (if granted) or the date the court announces that oral argument is denied.

The chief justice of each court of appeals would be required to enforce the deadlines in the same manner as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as submit a quarterly report to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding the court’s compliance with the deadlines. If a court of appeals fails to comply, the Chief Justice may prohibit the filing of additional appeals in that court and order the transfer of appeals to other courts. If a court of appeals was prohibited from accepting new appeals, justices of that court would not be credited with state service for the time period during which the court would be prohibit from accepting appeals, and the Legislative Budget Board and Governor would be required to reduce the non-complying court’s budget and shift money to courts receiving transfers. By January 31^st of each year, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would be required to submit a compliance report with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 26, 2015.

SB 443 - Study and Recommendations on Consolidating the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court

· Summary: SB 443, filed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D - Austin), would require the Judicial Council to study and make recommendations as to whether the CCA and the Supreme Court should be consolidated or whether one court should be abolished and its functions and jurisdiction transferred to the other court.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on February 9, 2015.

SB 455 - Creation of a Special Three-Judge District Court (Companion: HB 1091)

· Summary: SB 455, filed by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R - Conroe), would amend the Government Code to create a procedural mechanism that would allow the Attorney General to petition the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the formation of a special three-judge panel to hear certain types of cases in which the State of Texas or an officer or agency of the State is a defendant. Proceedings in front of a three-judge panel would be mandatory in cases involving a claim that either (1) challenges the finances or operations of the public school system; or (2) involves the apportionment of districts for the Texas House, Texas Senate, U.S. Congress, State Board of Education, or the apportionment of state judicial districts. Three-judge panel proceedings would be discretionary in other cases in which the Attorney General certifies that the outcome of the case either (1) significantly impacts the finances of the State; (2) significantly alters the operations of important statewide policies or programs; or (3) is otherwise of exceptional statewide importance such that the case should not be decided by a single district judge. Under SB 455, the Chief Justice’s decision to either deny the AG’s petition or order that a discretionary proceeding be heard by a special three-judge district court would be considered final and not appealable; however, appeals “from an appealable interlocutory order of final judgment” of the three-judge court would be directly to the Supreme Court.

SB 455 provides that the three-judge district court would consist of the district judge to whom the case was assigned at the time the petition to the Chief Justice was submitted, a district judge chosen by the Chief Justice who has been elected by the voters of a county other than the county in which the case was filed, and a justice of a court of appeals chosen by the Chief Justice who has been elected by the voters of a judicial district other than the district in which the case was filed or in which the district judge chosen under the section sits. The three-judge court would be required to sit in the county in which the case was filed and would be subject to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; provided, however, that the Supreme Court may promulgate rules for the operation of the three-judge courts.

The companion bill, HB 1091, was filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston).

· Fiscal Note for SB 455: Legislative Budget Board

· Analysis for SB 455: Senator Research Center

· Status of SB 455: On April 28^th, State Affairs unanimously voted SB 455 out of committee and the full Senate, by a 21-10 vote, passed the bill without amendment. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 20, 2015. Several witnesses either testified or registered a position on the bill. The only witness who testified was a TTLA representative, who spoke in favor of the bill. TLR registered as being for the bill, while a representative of the NAACP and a Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund representative registered as being against SB 455. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 455 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 455 begins around the 22:55 mark. A committee substitute was offered, but has yet to be posted.

· Bill Analysis for HB 1091: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1091: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1091: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted a committee substitute for HB 1091 out of committee (5-4 vote). (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Several witnesses testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. Most of those who testified or registered a position about the bill opposed it, including TTLA, the Texas Family Law Foundation, and TEX-ABOTA. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on HB 1091 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1091 begins around the 5:41:50 mark.)

SB 524 - Review of State Laws Requiring an Action or Proceeding to be Brought in Travis County or a Travis County Court (Companion: HB 1427)

· Summary: SB 524, filed by Sen. Brian Birdwell (R - Granbury) and Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D - McAllen), would create a commission to review Texas laws to identify each statute and state agency rule that requires an action or proceeding to be brought or considered in Travis County, a Travis County district or statutory county court, or the Third Court of Appeals. The commission would be required to make recommendations on whether the location of the action or proceeding in each statute or state agency rule serves a legitimate state purpose, other than the convenience of the state agency, that supersedes the interests of persons required to travel to Travis County to attend or participate in the action or proceeding or whether the identified statute or state agency rule should be revised to authorize an action or proceeding to be brought or considered in another Texas county. The companion bill, HB 1427, was filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo).

· Status of SB 524: Referred to Business & Commerce on February 18, 2015.

· Bill Analysis for HB 1427: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1427: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1427: HB 1427 was voted out of committee, without amendments, on April 2, 2015. (Committee History: General Investigating & Ethics conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2015. No one testified for, against, or on the bill. Only one person registered to take a position on the bill and it was a registration of support: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1427 begins around the 2:11:15 mark.)

SB 967 - Authority of a District Clerk to Collect Fees for Providing Electronic Copies of Certain Court Records

· Summary: SB 967, filed by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R - Houston), would amend section 51.318 of the Government Code to prohibit a district clerk from charging a fee for noncertified electronic copies of any electronic document on file or of record in the clerk’s office, unless the copy is provided in a bulk distribution.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on March 10, 2015.

SB 1116 - Notices or Documents Sent by Mail or Email by a Court, Court Clerk, or Judge (Companion: HB 2822)

· Summary: SB 1116, filed by Sen. Royce West (D - Dallas), would amend the Government Code to authorize a “court, justice, judge, magistrate, or clerk” to send any notice or document using mail or electronic mail and would apply to all civil and criminal statutes requiring delivery of a notice or document. However, authorized methods of delivery of electronic mail would not include facsimiles, instant messaging, messages on a social network website (including Facebook and Twitter), telegraphs, telephone messages, text messages, videoconferencing, voice messages, or webcams. The companion bill, HB 2822, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo).

· Bill Analysis for SB 1116: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1116: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1116: On April 30^th, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 1116. (Committee History: State Affairs unanimously voted a committee substitute for SB 1116 out of committee on April 22, 2015. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 16, 2015. Only three witnesses testified on SB 1116 (one in support of the bill; two simply “on” the bill), while several registered support for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1116 begins around the 55:30 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for HB 2822: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 2822: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2822: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 2822 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Only one witness testified on HB 2822, while several registered support for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 2822 begins around the 11:26:10 mark.)

SB 1970 - Increase of Statewide Electronic Filing Fees

· Summary: SB 1970, filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston), would raise the statewide electronic filing system fund fee collected by various courts from $20 to $30.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 28^th, State Affairs voted SB 1970 out of committee by an 8-1 vote. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 23, 2015. A few witnesses appeared to testify or register a position on the bill. The only witness who testified for the bill was a single probate court judge. A representative of the Family Law Foundation registered as being opposed to SB 1970. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1970 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1970 begins around the 34:45 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 427/HJR 49 - Creation of Texas Redistricting Commission

· Summary: HB 427 and HJR 49, filed by Rep. Donna Howard (D – Austin), would create the Texas Redistricting Commission (“TRC”), which would be responsible for adopting redistricting plans for the election of the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Senate, and the members of the United States House of Representatives elected from the state of Texas following each federal census. The TRC would also be responsible for reapportioning judicial districts in the event the Judicial Districts Board fails to reapportion the districts.

· Status of HB 427: Referred to Redistricting on February 16, 2015.

· Status of HJR 49: Referred to Redistricting on February 26, 2015.

HB 1122 - Number of Jurors Required in Certain Civil Cases Pending in Statutory County Court (Companion: SB 824)

· Summary: HB 1122, filed by Rep. Travis Clardy (R - Nacogdoches), would amend the Government Code to require that civil cases pending in a statutory county court in which the amount in controversy is $200,000 or more be tried before a jury of twelve (12) members. The bill would also require that the drawing of jury panels, the selection of jurors, and the related practice and procedure conform to that prescribed by law for district courts in the county where the statutory county court is located. The companion bill (SB 824) was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1122: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1122: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1122: On March 17^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously approved a committee substitute that would authorize a commissioners court to reduce the jurisdiction of the county court to $200,000 in those counties in which the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200,000. The committee substitute for HB 1122 (CSHB 1122) has been sent to the Local & Consent Calendar. (Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1122 begins around the 2:00 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 824: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 824: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 824: On April 15^th, the full Senate passed SB 824. The bill was sent to the House and referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 27^th. (Senate Committee History: On March 31, 2015, a committee substitute was voted unanimously out of State Affairs and recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. Like the House version, the committee substitute that would authorize a commissioners court to reduce the jurisdiction of the county court to $200,000 in those counties in which the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200,000, thus negating the need to use a twelve-person jury. (Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 23, 2015. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 824 begins around the 36:44 mark.)

HB 1416 - Judicial Recusal Based on Political Contributions

· Summary: HB 1416, authored by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would require justices on the Supreme Court and judges on the CCA (but apparently not intermediate appellate court justices) to “recuse himself or herself from any case in which the justice or judge has in the preceding four years accepted political contributions…in a total amount of $2,500 or more” from “(1) a party to the case, (2) attorney of record in the case, (3) the law firm of an attorney of record in the case, (4) the managing agent of a party to the case, (5) a member of the board of directors of a party to the case, or (6) a general-purpose committee…that is established or administered by a person who is a party to the case.” Similar legislation was filed in 2009, 2011, and 2013, all of which died in committee.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 9, 2015.

HB 1603 - Creation of the Chancery Court and Court of Chancery Appeals to Hear Certain Cases

· Summary: HB 1603, filed by Rep. Jason Villalba (R - Dallas), would create a statewide specialized civil trial court and an appellate court to hear certain business-related litigation cases, such as actions against businesses, accusations of wrongdoing by businesses or their members, disputes between businesses, violations of Business Organizations Code, Finance Code, and Business & Commerce Code. This court would have no jurisdiction over governmental entities (absent the government entity invoking or consenting to jurisdiction) or personal injury cases unless agreed to by the parties and the court. Some of the other notable components of the bill are:

o The chancery court would be composed of seven (7) judges who are appointed by the governor for staggered six (6) year terms. The judges would be selected from a list of qualified candidates compiled by a bipartisan advisory council (Chancery Court Nominations Advisory Council) and would be required to have at least 10 years of experience in complex business law.

o The court clerk would be located in Travis County, but individual judges would be based in the county seat of their respective counties.

o Current venue rules would apply, but cases could be heard in an agreed-upon county or where the court may decide to be more convenient or necessary.

o There would be a removal procedure for cases filed in a district court.

o The Courts of Chancery Appeals, which would handle appeals from the chancery trial court, would be composed of seven (7) justices from current court of appeals justices that are appointed by the governor based on a list of qualified candidates compiled by the advisory council. Justices would serve six (6) year terms and would hear cases in panels of three (3) randomly-selected justices. Appeals from the CCA would go to the Supreme Court.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16^th, Business & Industry voted HB 1603 out of committee (by a 4-3 vote). The bill’s author had originally intended to amend the bill once it reaches the House floor; however, the committee held another public meeting on April 21^st and adopted the amended bill. The amendments exempt certain types of cases from the subject matter jurisdiction of the chancery court and increased the minimum amount in controversy for chancery court cases. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill. Those testifying in support of HB 1603 included former Chief Justice Tom Phillips and a representative from the Texas Business Law Foundation. Those testifying against the bill included representatives from TTLA, TADC, and TEX-ABOTA. Here is a complete list of those who testified or otherwise registered a position on the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1603 begins around the 2:28:30 mark.) Note: After the initial public hearing, the SBOT granted the requests of the Litigation Section and Judicial Section to oppose HB 1603. The Business Law Section was given permission to support the bill.

HB 1656 - Public Financing of Campaigns for Appellate Judicial Offices

· Summary: HB 1656, filed by Rep. Rafael Anchia (D - Dallas), is essentially the same bill that Rep. Anchia filed in 2013 (HB 1126) and died in committee. HB 1656 would affect the manner in which appellate justice/judge campaigns are financed by providing a public financing option for eligible candidates. Specifically, under HB 1656, a candidate could request public financing by filing a petition signed by a specific number of qualified voters who also make a minimum contribution to the candidate’s campaign. Once the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) declares that a candidate has met the eligibility standards, the candidate could begin receiving distributions from the fund and could no longer accept contributions from private contributors or benefit from the direct campaign expenditures on the candidate’s behalf. The fund would be composed of any amounts appropriated or gifted, as well as by civil penalties levied by the TEC.

· Bill Status: Referred to Elections on March 9, 2015.

HB 2730 - Creation of Fifteenth District Court of Appeals

· Summary: HB 2370, filed by Rep. Phil Stephenson (R - Rosenberg), would create the Fifteenth District Court of Appeals, which would sit in Edinburg and be composed of Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties. The court would consist of three (3) justices. Under HB 2370, the number of justices on the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals would be reduced to three (3) justices.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were several individuals and groups registered to testify for, on, or against HB 2730: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2730 begins around the 1:04:00 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 3426 - Jurisdiction of Statutory County Courts at Law

· Summary: HB 3426, filed by Rep. Gilbert Pena (R - Pasadena), would amend section 25.0003(c)(1) of the Government Code and modify the jurisdiction of statutory county courts at law in the following manner:

“civil cases in which the matter in controversy exceeds $500 but does not exceed $200,000, excluding interest [, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney ’s fees and costs, as alleged on the face of the petition].”

In other words, under HB 3426, statutory or punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs would be included in determining the amount in controversy for purposes of determining jurisdiction.

· Bill Status: HB 3426 had been scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, no action was taken by the committee as the author had asked that the hearing be rescheduled.

HB 3430 - Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

· Summary: HB 3430, filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston), would amend Chapter 22 of the Government Code and essentially require that the Supreme Court be given an opportunity to review any constitutional rulings by the Court of Criminal Appeals before the rulings became final and effective. More specifically, HB 3430 would add the following sections 22.1025 and 22.002(f) to the Government Code:

Sec. 22.1025: “(a) Any ruling by the court of criminal appeals that any statute, rule, or procedure violates either the state or federal constitutions shall not be final and shall have no effect until the later of: (1) 60 days following the ruling; or (2) The denial or dismissal of a petition filed in the supreme court pursuant to Section 22.002(f) of the Government Code.”

Section 22.002(f): “Whenever the court of criminal appeals determines that a statute, rule, or procedure is unconstitutional, the supreme court, on the petition of the attorney general or a district or county attorney, has original civil jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto and mandamus to correct any error in the court of criminal appeals ’ determination.” Section 22.002(f) would apply regardless of whether (1) the CCA rules under the Texas Constitution, U.S. Constitution, or both; (2) the constitutional ruling by the CCA is characterized as criminal or civil; or (3) the ruling by the CCA is characterized as final or non-final.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Former Chief Justice Tom Phillips was one of the individuals who testified in support of HB 3430. A representative for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association testified against the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3430 begins around the 2:16:30 mark. The bill was left pending.

HJR 62 - Constitutional Amendment Regarding the Recording and Publication of Certain Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals Proceedings (Related Bill: HB 3932)

· Summary: HJR 62, filed by Rep. Rep. Terry Canales (D- Edinburg), would amend the Texas Constitution and require the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals to make a video recording (or other electronic visual and audio recording) of each oral argument, proceeding, and open meeting of each court and post the recording on each court’s website. Rep. Canales subsequently filed HB 3932 to correct some of the issues raised by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence during the March 10^th hearing on HJR 62 (discussed below).

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HJR 62: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Although no witnesses testified against the concept, there was much discussion about the scope of the resolution (e.g., whether “proceedings” would encompass internal conferences, etc.) and whether a constitutional amendment was the correct vehicle to impose the recording requirement. The Supreme Court already records oral argument and other public meetings and posts the recordings on its website, so much of the discussion centered around the CCA. For those interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 62 begins around the 1:09 mark. HJR 62 remains pending.

· Status of HB 3932: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

HJR 81 - Constitutional Amendment to Change the Terms of District Court Judges to Six Years

· Summary: HJR 81, filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would increase the terms of district court judges from four years to six years. A similar bill was filed in 2013, but failed to get out of committee.

HJR 90 - Constitutional Amendment to Abolish the Court of Criminal Appeals

· Summary: HJR 90, also filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would abolish the CCA and give jurisdiction of criminal appeals to the Supreme Court. Similar legislation was filed in 2009, 2011, and 2013, each of which died in committee. Under HJR 90, death penalty cases would be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, while all other criminal cases would go through the court of appeals. In non-death penalty cases that make it to the Supreme Court, the justices would sit in panels of three. The Supreme Court would hear death penalty cases en banc.

· Status of HJR 90: Scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on May 5, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. or upon final adjournment/recess of the House. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast.

Lawsuit Financing/Lending

HB 3454 - Assignment of Rights in an Individual's Legal Claim

· Summary: HB 3454, filed by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D - Houston), seeks to regulate “civil justice funding” transactions and “civil justice funding companies,” and would permit a civil justice funding company to enter into a “non-recourse transaction in which [the] civil justice funding company purchases, and a consumer assigns to the company, a contingent right to receive an amount of the potential proceeds of a settlement, judgment, award, or verdict obtained in the consumer’s legal claim” provided that the transaction is documented via a written contract that complies with the requirements set forth in the statute. The bill specifies that a civil justice funding transaction may not be considered a loan or subject to state laws governing loans (including limits on interest rates). A similar bill (HB 1254) was filed by Rep. Thompson in 2013, but it died in committee.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3454 begins around the 5:15 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 3218 - Litigation Finance Agreements

· Summary: HB 3218, filed by Rep. Anna Hernandez (D - Houston), would add Chapter 354 to the Finance Code and establish statutory requirements for “litigation financing agreements.” Under HB 3218, a litigation financing agreement would be defined as an agreement under which “money is provided to or on behalf of a consumer by a litigation financing company for a purpose other than prosecuting the consumer’s legal claim” and “the repayment of the money is in accordance with a litigation financing transaction the terms of which are included as part of the litigation financing agreement.”

HB 3218 would require litigation financing agreements to: (1) be in writing; (2) contain the initials of the consumer on each page; and (3) be “otherwise complete” when presented to the consumer for signature. Other required terms and disclosures, which must be on the front page of the agreement under appropriate headings, would include the following: (1) the funded amount to be paid to the consumer by the litigation financing company; (2) an itemization of one-time charges; (3) the total amount to be assigned by the consumer to the company, including the funded amount and all charges; and (4) a payment schedule that: (a) includes the funded amount and charges; and (b) lists all dates and the amount due at the end of each 180-day period from the funding date until the due date of the maximum amount due to the company by the consumer to satisfy the amount owed under the agreement.

A similar bill (HB 1595) was voted out of committee last session, but was never voted on by the entire House.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Patent Infringement Claims

SB 1187 - Patent Infringement Claims (Companion: HB 3176)

· Summary: SB 1187, filed by Sen. Van Taylor (R - Plano), would add Chapter 2005 to the Business & Commerce Code and prohibit bad faith patent infringement claims. More specifically, SB 1187 would prohibit a person from sending a demand letter that makes, in bad faith, a claim of patent infringement against a Texas resident, and in connection with the claim: (1) files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement; (2) threatens to file a lawsuit if the alleged patent infringement is not resolved; or (3) makes a demand for compensation or damages or payment of a license fee based on the alleged patent infringement. For purposes of SB 1187, a person makes a claim of patent infringement in bad faith if: (1) the claim is objectively baseless, meaning that no reasonable litigant could reasonably expect success on the merits; and (2) the person making the claim knows or should have known that the claim is objectively baseless. However, a claim of patent infringement would be presumed to be made in good faith if the claim is made by a person who holds a certificate of authority issued by the Attorney General under Chapter 2005 or is a claim for relief arising under federal law.

SB 1187 would not create a private cause of action, but would authorize the Attorney General to enforce any violations of Chapter 2005. The bill would also create two information databases-- one for persons sending demand letters and another for the demand letters themselves, both of which would be maintained by the Secretary of State.

The companion bill, HB 3176, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo).

· Bill Analysis of SB 1187: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1187: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1187: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 9, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1187 begins around the 39:10:00 mark. A committee substitute was offered that deletes any criminal penalty for barratry, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

· Status of HB 3176: Scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on May 5, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. or upon final adjournment/recess of the House. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast.

SB 1457 - Bad Faith Patent Infringement Claims

· Summary: SB 1457, filed by Sen. Robert Nichols (R - Jacksonville), would amend the Business and Commerce Code by adding an additional subchapter to the DTPA entitled "Bad Faith Claims of Patent Infringement." Like SB 1187/HB 3176, the bill would prohibit bad faith claims of patent infringement. However, unlike SB 1187/HB 3176, SB 1457 would define a bad faith claim as one that includes an allegation of infringement and (a) falsely states that the sender has filed a lawsuit in connection with the claim; (b) the claim is objectively baseless; and (c) the communication is likely to materially mislead the recipient because it does not include the identity of the person asserting the claim, the patent that is alleged to have been infringed, and at least one product, service or activity that is alleged to infringe the patent. Under SB 1457, "objectively baseless" would mean that (a) the sender does not have a current right to license the patent or to enforce the patent; (b) the patent has been held invalid or unenforceable in a final judgment or administrative decision; or (c) the infringing activity occurred after the patent expired.

SB 1457 would authorize the Attorney General to bring an action if it believes that the prohibition against bad faith claims of patent infringement has been violated. The Attorney General could also seek injunctive relief and a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000 for each violation as well as reimbursement to the State of Texas of the “reasonable value of investigating and prosecuting a violation” and restitution to the victim for “legal and professional expenses related to the violation.”

The bill specifically states that it would not prohibit a person with rights to license and enforce a patent from notifying others of their ownership, offering it for license, notifying any person of infringement under federal law, or seeking compensation for past or present infringement or for a license to the patent. Finally, SB 1457 also provides that the knowing institution of a suit or claim for patent infringement that constitutes a bad faith claim of patent infringement under the DTPA would be a Class A misdemeanor.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 21, 2015, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 1457. (Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 9, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1457 begins around the 39:10:00 mark. On April 15, 2015, the committee unanimously voted the committee substitute out of committee. The substitute deleted any criminal penalty for barratry.)

Probate Court Proceedings

SB 512 - Promulgation of Forms for Use in Probate Matters

· Summary: SB 512, filed by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D - Laredo), would require the Supreme Court to promulgate appropriate forms and instructions for the use of certain forms by individuals representing themselves in certain probate matters or making certain wills, including forms for use in: (1)Aa small estate affidavit proceeding under the Estates Code; (2) the probate of a will as a muniment of title under the Estates Code; and (3) the making of a will for married and unmarried individuals. A similar, though not identical, bill (HB 2196) has been filed in the House by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 512: On March 24, 2015, the full Senate passed SB 512 by a 30-1 vote. SB 512 was sent to the House and referred to Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence. (Senate Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 9, 2015. Those who testified about the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in listening to the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast (audio only) of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 512 begins around the 2:16 mark. A committee substitute was offered to make the bill identical to HB 2196. The bill was unanimously voted out of committee on March 16, 2015.)

· Status of HB 2196: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

Product Liability Claims

HB 1988 - Liability of Manufacturers and Sellers for Misuse of Products

· Summary: HB 1988, filed by Rep. Drew Springer (R - Gainesville), would amend Chapter 82 of the CPRC to address the liability of a product manufacturer or seller for the subsequent misuse of a product. More specifically, the bill would add section 82.0045 to the CPRC and provide that, in a products liability action, a manufacturer or seller would not be liable “for any claim arising out of harm caused by misuse of a product by a person other than the manufacturer or seller.” HB 1988 would also allow the court to, on its own motion and after reasonable notice to the parties, dismiss a claim filed after September 1, 2015, “if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim was caused by misuse of a product by a person other than the manufacturer or the seller.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 12, 2015.

Qualifications for Public Office and Term Limits

SJR 6 - Constitutional Amendment to Provide Qualifications for and Limit the Time that a Person May Serve in Certain Offices

· Summary: SJR 6, filed by Sen. Don Huffines (R – Dallas), proposes a constitutional amendment that would place terms limits on legislators (12 years) and would limit the amount of time that a legislator could serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives or as a committee chair. SJR 6 would also impose term limits on almost the entire Texas judiciary. For example, SJR 6 would bar Supreme Court justices and CCA judges from re-election if they had previously been elected to two full terms; however, the intermediate appellate court justices would not be subject to the term limits imposed under the current version of SJR 6. SJR 6 would also apply to "every district office or office of a political subdivision of this state that is filled by popular election," which appears to include district judges, county court-at-law judges, justices of the peace and county and district attorneys. All would be ineligible for re-election if they had served eight years or more. SJR 6 would become effective in 2016.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 27, 2015.

SJR 24 - Constitutional Amendment Limiting to Two the Number of Consecutive Terms for Which a Person may be Elected or Appointed to Hold Certain State Offices (Companion: HJR 38)

· Summary: SJR 24, filed by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R - Tyler), would prohibit a person who has been elected or appointed to serve two consecutive terms in an office listed in Article IV, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution (i.e., Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Commissioner of the General Land Office, and Attorney General), as well as “any other statewide elective office, other than a statewide judicial office,” from serving for a third consecutive term. However, SJR would not limit a person ’s eligibility for election or appointment to serve nonconsecutive terms. The companion resolution, HJR 38, was filed by Rep. Lyle Larson (R - San Antonio).

· Status of SJR 24: Referred to State Affairs on February 2, 2015.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HJR 38: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 18, 2015. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 38 begins around the 2:07:45 mark. The resolution remains pending.

Survival Actions

HB 3416 - Authority of Certain Persons to Bring a Survival Action

· Summary: HB 3416, filed by Rep. Larry Phillips (R - Sherman), would amend section 71.021 of the CPRC by adding the following section (b-1): “A legal representative of the estate of the injured person may bring the action or, if no action is filed by a legal representative of the estate, one or more heirs may bring the action for the benefit of all heirs and the estate of the injured person.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 17, 2015.

Trial Court Procedure

SB 1534 – Venue in Lawsuits Filed Against the State of Texas or State Agency

· Summary: SB 1534, filed by Rep. Konni Burton (R - Colleyville), would amend the CPRC to add section 15.021, which would provide that a lawsuit against the State of Texas or a state agency may be brought in either Travis County or “a county in which the court of appeals is held for a court of appeals district that includes the county in which the plaintiff: (a) resided at the time of the accrual of the cause of action; or (b) resides at the time the suit is brought.”

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on March 23, 2015.

HB 241 - Substituted Service of Citation Through Social Media

· Summary: HB 241, filed by Rep. Jeff Leach (R - Plano), would add section 17.302 to the CPRC and permit a court to authorize service of process via electronic communication through a “social media presence” if substituted service is authorized under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HB 241 would also require the Supreme Court to promulgate rules to provide for substituted service through social media. Rep. Leach filed a similar bill in 2013 (HB 1989), but it died in committee.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 241 out of committee, without amendment, on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. There was a considerable amount of discussion about the appropriateness of serving a defendant via social media. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 241 begins around the 13:20 mark.)

HB 1692 - Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens (Companion: SB 1942)

· Summary: HB 1692, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would amend section 71.051(e) of the CPRC and provide that, in determining whether a case should be dismissed under the forum non conveniens provisions, the “plaintiff’s choice of a forum…shall be given substantial deference, provided that the plaintiff is a legal resident of the state and the underlying litigation has a significant connection to this state.” HB 1692 would also eliminate the “legal resident” definition and add to the definition of “plaintiff” the following: “an intervenor, beneficiary, next friend, or other derivative party to the plaintiff ’s claim” and “a decedent ’s estate, if the decedent was not a legal resident of this state at the time of death.” The companion bill (SB 1942) was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1692: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1692: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1692: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 1692 out of committee by a 5-4 vote. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Those who testified either for, on, or against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1692 begins around the 4:14:00 mark.)

· Status of SB 1942: Referred to State Affairs on March 25, 2015.

HB 2211 - Agreed Venue Selection in Civil Actions

· Summary: HB 2211, filed by Rep. John Wray (R - Waxahachie), would amend CPRC section 15.020 and require a court to transfer an action to another county if the parties consent to the transfer and the motion to transfer is filed before trial begins.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

Wrongful Life/Birth Causes of Action

HB 1367 - Elimination of Wrongful Life/Birth Causes of Action

· Summary: HB 1367, filed by Rep. Gilbert Pena (R - Pasadena), would amend the CPRC to expressly eliminate “wrongful life” and “wrongful birth” causes of action.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 9, 2015.

HB 3008 - Elimination of Wrongful Birth Cause of Action

· Summary: HB 3008, filed by Rep. Ron Simmons (R - Carrollton), would amend the CPRC to expressly prohibit a cause of action and damages arising on a claim that “but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted.”

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 29^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 3008 out of committee without amendment. The committee had conducted a public hearing on April 28, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 3008 begins around the 3:19:30 mark.

Legislative Update
April 26, 2015 

As we head into the last month of the regular session, efforts to vote and report out monitored bills continue to accelerate. Last week, Senate and House committees took public testimony on six (6) monitored bills. Nine (9) bills were voted out of committee, while the full Senate and House passed three (3) bills: SB 627 (Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for Libel Action), SB 1457 (Bad Faith Patent Infringement Claims), and HB 2089 (Repeal of Certain Occupation License Fees and Taxes).

As in past updates, I’ve included bill number links in the “The Week in Review” and “The Week Ahead” sections that will take you to the summaries for each bill in the “Monitored Legislation” section.

The Week in Review

The following six (6) monitored bills received public hearings last week (except for HB 1766, all remain pending in committee):

HB 1766 – Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for Libel Action

HB 2088 – Interim Study Regarding the Method by Which Judges and Justices are Selected

HB 2730 – Creation of Fifteenth District Court of Appeals

HB 3646 – Insurance Claims and Certain Prohibited Acts and Practices Relating to the Business of Insurance

SB 455 – Creation of a Special Three-Judge District Court

SB 1970 – Increase of Statewide Electronic Filing Fees

The following nine (9) bills were voted out of committee:

HB 241 – Substituted Service of Citation Through Social Media

HB 969 and SB 735 – Availability and Use of Evidence in Connection with an Award of Exemplary Damages

HB 1403 – Definition of Health Care Liability Claim for the Purposes of Certain Laws Governing Those Claims

HB 1603 – Creation of the Chancery Court and Court of Chancery Appeals (second vote to amend the original bill)

HB 1766 – Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for Libel Action

HB 2822 and SB 1116 – Notices or Documents Sent by Mail or Electronic Mail by a Court, Justice, Judge, or Clerk of a Judicial Clerk

SB 1628 – Insurance Claims and Certain Prohibited Acts and Practices Relating to the Business of Insurance

SB 627 (Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for Libel Action) and SB 1457 (Bad Faith Patent Infringement Claims) were unanimously passed by the full Senate on April 22^nd and April 21^st respectively. On April 23, 2015, the House unanimously passed HB 2089 (Repeal of Certain Occupation License Fees and Taxes).

The status of each bill, as well as the others that experienced some form of activity last week, have been updated below.

The Week Ahead

The following six (6) monitored bills are scheduled for public hearing this week:

HB 1784 – Construction Defect Claims

HB 2045 – Eligibility of Attorneys Licensed by Another State to Take the State Bar Exam

HB 3008 – Elimination of Wrongful Birth Cause of Action

HB 3364 – Appeals of Judgments in Eviction Suits

HB 3430 – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

HB 3454 – Assignment of Rights in an Individual’s Legal Claim

Where applicable, the status and summary for each of these bills, as well as all other monitored bills, have been updated.

Monitored Legislation

The subject-matter groupings below that include bills scheduled for hearing have been marked with an “++”. The status of each bill has been updated below and, where appropriate, links to hearing notices, witness lists, bill analyses, video/audio broadcasts, and other related documents have been posted for each bill. (Note: If you would rather jump-down to a category of bills instead of perusing the entire list from top-to-bottom, you can click on the subject heading below.)

Appellate Procedure

Attorney's Fees/Fee Agreements

Attorneys - Practice of Law++

Certificate of Merit

Collaborative Law

Constitutional Challenges to Texas Statutes

Construction Defect Claims++

Damages

Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Decisions Based on Foreign Laws (Non-Family Law Proceedings)

Defamation/Libel

Elections

Evictions++

Family Law

Governmental Immunity

Health Care Liability

Insurance

Judicial Selection

Judiciary/Court Administration++

Lawsuit Financing/Lending++

Patent Infringement Claims

Probate Court Proceedings

Product Liability Claims

Qualifications for Public Office/Term Limits

Survival Actions

Trial Court Procedure

Wrongful Birth/Life Causes of Action++

Appellate Procedure

HB 1494 - Filing of the Reporter's Record

· Summary: HB 1494, filed by Rep. Bryan Hughes (R - Mineola), would amend section 52.047 of the Government Code to state that a court reporter would not be required to file an official transcript of a trial before the 60^th day after the date a notice of appeal is filed. However, this amendment would not apply to accelerated or interlocutory appeals.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 1494 out of committee without amendment. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1494 begins around the 1:41:00 mark.)

Attorney’s Fees/Fee Agreements

HB 230 - Recovery of Attorney's Fees in Certain Civil Cases

· Summary: HB 230, filed by Rep. Jessica Farrar (D - Houston), would amend Chapter 38.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code (CPRC) to (1) add “other legal entity” to the list of those from whom attorney’s fees can be recovered; and (2) expressly provide that Chapter 38.001 does not authorize the recovery of attorney’s fees from the state, an agency or institution of the state, or a political subdivision. The bill would further provide that the amendment to Chapter 38.001 does not affect any other statute that permits the recovery of attorney’s fees from the governmental entities listed in the statute.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 230 was passed by the full House on April 9^th. (Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 230 begins around the 1:47:30 mark. HB 230 was voted out of committee without amendments on March 17^th.)

HB 247 - Limitations on Certain Actions Arising Out of Attorney's Fee Agreements

· Summary: HB 247, filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would place limitations on claims that could be brought under contingent fee agreements that comply with the statute (i.e., agreements that expressly state the method by which a fee is determined; that litigation and other expenses will be deducted from the recovery; and whether litigation expenses and other expenses are deducted before or after the contingent fee is calculated). The limitations in HB 247 would also apply to contingency fee agreements in which an attorney represents two or more clients and enters into an aggregate settlement agreement of the clients’ claims if the agreement expressly discloses: 1) the existence and nature of all claims or pleas involved; 2) the nature and extent of the participation of each client in the settlement; and 3) the amount of remittance to each client and the method by which the remittance will be determined.

HB 247 would permit a party to bring a claim arising out of an agreement subject to the statute only on the grounds that the agreement was obtained by corruption, coercion, force, fraud, or other undue means, or that the agreement was forged. Further, in a claim arising out of the settlement of matters involving multiple clients that is brought on grounds other than those permitted by HB 247, the settlement will be “irrebuttably presumed” to be: 1) fully disclosed, read, understood, and voluntarily entered into by all parties to the agreement; 2) fair, accepted, reasonable, and made in the best interests of the parties by the parties or through their attorneys; and 3) final and not subject to subsequent litigation.

On the motion of a party, a court will be required to dismiss with prejudice any action involving claims arising out of an agreement that is subject to HB 247 if the action is brought on grounds other than those permitted by HB 247.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 5, 2015.

HB 1531 - Referrals for Legal Services by Legislators and Executive Officers

· Summary: HB 1531, filed by Rep. Charlie Geren (R - Fort Worth), would add section 572.063 to the Government Code and prohibit a member of the legislature or an executive officer elected in a statewide election who is a member of the State Bar of Texas or who is licensed to practice law in another state or a United States territory from making or receiving any referral for legal services for monetary compensation or any other benefit unless the referral complied with State Bar rules and is evidenced by a written contract between the parties who are subject to the referral. A violation of this law would be a Class A misdemeanor. The original version of the bill prohibited referrals without exception.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 2^nd, General Investigating & Ethics voted the committee substitute out of committee and sent the bill to Calendars on April 7^th. (Committee History: General Investigating & Ethics conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2015. No one testified for, against, or on the bill. Only one person registered to take a position on the bill and it was a registration of support. Here is the Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1531 begins around the 2:08:00 mark.)

Attorneys – Practice of Law

SB 534 - Oath of Persons Admitted to Practice Law in Texas (Companions: HB 1644; HB 1909)

· Summary: SB 534, filed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D - Austin), would amend section 82.037 of the Government Code and revise the oath taken by all attorneys admitted to practice law in Texas so as to require attorneys to conduct themselves “with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties.” Companion bills, HB 1644 and 1909, were filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo) and Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi) respectively.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 534: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 534: On March 24, 2015, the Senate unanimously passed SB 534. It has now been referred to the House. (Committee History: On March 2, 2015, State Affairs conducted a hearing on SB 534. All who appeared before the committee, including representatives from the Texas Trial Lawyers Association (TTLA), the Texas Association of Defense Counsel (TADC), and the Texas Chapters of the American Board of Trial Advocates (TEX-ABOTA), testified in support of the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 534 begins around the 44:55 mark. The bill was unanimously voted out of committee).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1644: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1644: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1644: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 1644 out of committee without amendment. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 24, 2015. Several testified in support of the bill. No one opposed it. Those who testified are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1644 begins around the 1:02:35 mark.)

SB 765 - Repeal of Occupation Tax (Companion: HB 2089)

· Summary: SB 765, filed by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R - Tyler), would repeal the $200 annual attorney occupation tax, as well as other occupation taxes on licensed professionals. The companion bill, HB 2089, was filed by Rep. Drew Darby (R - San Angelo), but multiple representatives have joined in on the bill.

· Bill Analysis for SB 765: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 765: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 765: Senate Finance conducted a hearing on many “tax relief” bills, including SB 765, on March 3, 2015. Public testimony was taken on March 4^th. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcasts of the hearings: Senate Archived Broadcasts (March 3rd) and Senate Archived Video (Public Testimony - March 4th) . Testimony about SB 765 at the March 3^rd hearing begins around the 10:45 mark; public testimony at the March 4^th hearing begins around the 1:19:20 mark. Here is the list of witnesses who testified about the bill: Witness List. The bill remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for HB 2089: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 2089: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2089: On April 23, 2015, the House unanimously passed HB 2089. (Committee History: Licensing & Administrative Procedures conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Several testified or registered in support of the bill. No one opposed it. Those who testified or registered in support of HB 2089 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony on HB 2089 begins around the 2:07:25 mark. The committee approved a committee substitute for HB 2089 and voted it out of committee on April 6, 2015.)

SB 1430 – Eligibility of Attorneys Licensed Outside of State to Take Bar Exam (Companion: HB 2045)

· Summary: SB 1430, filed by Sen. Bob Hall (R - Rockwall), would amend the Government Code by adding section 82.025 and would permit an attorney licensed to practice law in another state to take the Texas bar examination regardless of whether the attorney has completed the study of law in an approved law school if the attorney: (1) is a United States citizen; and (2) satisfies all other requirements to be licensed in Texas. The companion bill, HB 2045, was filed by Rep. James White (R - Woodville).

· Status of SB 1430: Referred to State Affairs on March 18, 2015.

· Fiscal Note for HB 2045: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2045: Scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 28, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. or upon final adjournment/recess of the House. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast.

HB 2624 - Effects of Default on a Student Loan Administered by Higher Education Coordinating Board on License Renewals

· Summary: HB 2624, filed by Rep. Chris Turner (D - Arlington/Grand Prairie), would amend the Education Code to prevent licensed professionals (including licensed attorneys) who are in default on student loans administered by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) from having their professional licenses renewed. Under the bill, THCEB would receive a list of licensees from the applicable licensing board/agency to determine if any of the licensees are in default on their loans and then send a default list back to the licensing board/agency. A person who was in default could enter a repayment plan with the THECB, at which time the licensing board/agency could still renew the license as long as the licensee was current on repayments. The licensing agency would have to provide a hearing before non-renewing a license. Under HB 2624, the licensing board/agency would create its own rules to carry out the bill's provisions. The bill specifically requires the Supreme Court to create the rules for non-renewing law licenses.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 1^st, HB 2624 was voted out of committee without amendments and was recommended for the Local & Consent calendar. (Committee History: Higher Education conducted a public hearing on March 25, 2015. Those who testified either for or on the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2624 begins around the 26:50 mark.)

Certificate of Merit

HB 1353 - Certificates of Merit for Certain Professionals (Companion: SB 1579)

· Summary: HB 1353, filed by Rep. Charlie Geren (R - Fort Worth), would add a definition of “claimant” to CPRC section 150.001, which is the statute that requires a person to file an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor with a claim for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional. For purposes of the statute, “claimant” would mean a party, including a plaintiff, counter-claimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff, seeking recovery of damages. The current statute uses only the undefined term “plaintiff.” The companion bill, SB 1579, was filed by Sen. Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay).

· Status of HB 1353: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 17, 2015. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive Witness List. Testimony about HB 1353 begins around the 10:00 mark.

· Status of SB 1579: Referred to State Affairs on March 23, 2015.

Collaborative Law

HB 2512 - Adoption of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act

· Summary: HB 2512, filed by Rep. Bill Zedler (R - Arlington), would add Chapter 160 to the CPRC and adopt the Uniform Collaborative Law Act in order to clarify rules about the mechanics of collaborative law. Collaborative law is a voluntary process that is intended to provide for a form of limited scope representation in which an attorney is retained solely for the purpose of reaching a settlement, and expressly not for the purpose of litigation.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either for, on, or against the bill. Two individuals/attorneys testified in favor of HB 2512. Representatives from TTLA, TADC, and TEX-ABOTA all testified against it. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 2512 begins around the 2:50:00 mark. The bill remains pending,

Constitutional Challenges to Texas Statutes

SJR 8 - Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Legislature to Require a Court to Provide Notice to the Attorney General of a Constitutional Challenge to State Statutes

· Summary: SJR 8, filed by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D - Laredo), would amend the Texas Constitution to specifically authorize the Legislature to (1) require a court to notify the attorney general of a challenge to the constitutionality of a Texas statute, and (2) prescribe a reasonable period after notice is provided during which the court may not enter a judgment holding a statute unconstitutional. [Note: SJR 8 is the legislative response to the 2013 decision by the CCA holding that section 402.010(a)-(b) of the Government Code, which prevents a court from entering a final judgment until the AG is notified of a constitutional challenge to a statute, violated the separation-of-powers principles set forth in the Texas Constitution]. As you may recall, the Legislature passed legislation in 2011 (HB 2425) amending the Government Code to require courts to notify the AG when constitutional challenges to state statutes were raised. The law was amended in 2013 to place the burden of notifying the court of the pleading that should be served on the AG on the party raising the constitutional challenge (SB 392).

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 27, 2015.

Construction Defect Claims

HB 1784 - Construction Defect Claims

· Summary: HB 1784, filed by Rep. Paul Workman (R - Austin), would amend section 41.015 of the CPRC to establish a 10-year statute of repose for construction defect claims against the person who actually designed, administered, constructed, or repaired an improvement to real property. The statute of repose would apply only to the actual costs incurred in curing a construction defect and the amount of damages for cost to cure would be reduced by 10% on each anniversary date of substantial completion of the construction of repair that occurs before the date the action is filed. An award of exemplary damages, multiplied damages, or other damages computed on the basis of the amount of damages for the cost to cure the defect would have to reflect any reduction made under section 41.015.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 28, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. or upon final adjournment/recess of the House. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast.

Damages

HB 419 - Federal Income Tax Liability for Damages Awarded in Civil Actions

· Summary: HB 419, filed by Rep. Gene Wu (D – Houston), would amend Chapter 41 of the CPRC to require a defendant to compensate a claimant for federal income tax liability arising out of a damages award.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either against or on the bill, most of which (all insurance and/or contractor representatives) were against it. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 419 begins around the 1:39:00 mark. A committee substitute was proposed that reportedly includes a 2-year limitation period for defendants to be liable for compensation under this bill, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

HB 820 - Liability for Damages Arising from Certain Motor Vehicle Accidents

· Summary: HB 820, filed by Rep. Ed Thompson (R - Pearland), would amend the CPRC by adding Chapter 72A, which would prevent an uninsured driver who was in a car accident from recovering exemplary and noneconomic damages in a lawsuit for bodily injury, death or property damage. The same prohibition would apply to derivative claims arising out of the accident, such as claims for wrongful death or loss of consortium or companionship. However, the prohibition would not apply to claims brought by the uninsured driver in a representative capacity (e.g., as next friend if the uninsured driver’s minor child was injured) or if the at-fault driver was driving drunk, acted willfully or was grossly negligent, had fled the scene, or was committing a felony when the accident happened.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 3, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups registered to testify both for and against HB 820: Witness List. TTLA and Texas Watch provided oral testimony in opposition to the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 820 begins around the 3:30 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but the bill remains pending.

HB 969 - Availability and Use of Certain Evidence in Connection with an Award of Exemplary Damages (Companion: SB 735)

· Summary: HB 969, filed by Rep. Ken King (R - Hemphill), would amend section 41.011 of the CPRC and eliminate “the net worth of defendant” as one of the elements considered in determining the amount of exemplary damages. Specifically, HB 969 deletes “the net worth of the defendant” from the types of evidence to be considered by the trier of fact under section 41.0011(a) and adds the following subsection (c) to that section: “Evidence of the financial condition or net worth of a party is not relevant for the purpose of supporting a claim for or the amount of exemplary damages.” The companion bill, SB 735, was filed by Sen. Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay).

· Fiscal Note for HB 969: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 969: By a 5-4 vote, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted the committee substitute for HB 969 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified or registered either for, on or against HB 969. Representatives from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and businesses/organizations were in favor of the bill. A TTLA representative testified against the bill. A TADC representative also testified, but did not take a position on HB 969. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 969 begins around the 3:30:35 mark. The committee substitute has yet to be posted.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 735: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 735: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 735: By a 7-2 vote, State Affairs voted SB 735 out of committee on April 22, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 13, 2015. Several witnesses testified or registered either for, on or against SB 735. Representatives from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and businesses/organizations were in favor of the bill. A TTLA representative testified against the bill. A TADC representative testified, but did not take a position on SB 735. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 735 begins around the 2:37:40 mark.)

Deceptive Trade Practices Act

HB 2898 - Relating to Certain DTPA Procedures, Civil Penalties, and Remedies

· Summary: HB 2898, filed by Rep. Sarah Davis (R - Houston), would amend sections 17.45(9) and (13) of the Business & Commerce Code in order to modify the definitions of “intentionally” and “knowingly” and certain portions of the provisions related to the consumer protection division of the AG’s office (i.e., sections 17.47, 17.60, and 17.61). More specifically, HB 2898 would (a) substitute the phrase “misleading nature” for the word “unfairness” in the “knowingly” definition in section 17.45(9); and (b) change the definition of “intentionally” to read as follows:

(13) "Intentionally" means actual awareness, at the time of the act or practice complained of, of the falsity, deception, or misleading nature [unfairness] of the act or practice giving rise to the consumer ’s claim [,] or the condition, defect, or failure constituting a breach of warranty giving rise to the consumer’s claim, coupled with the specific intent that the consumer act in detrimental reliance on the act, practice, condition, defect, or failure [falsity or deception or in detrimental ignorance of the unfairness]. Intention may be inferred from objective manifestations that indicate that the person acted intentionally or from facts showing that a defendant acted with flagrant disregard of prudent and fair business practices to the extent that the defendant should be treated as having acted intentionally.

The remaining changes specifically relate to the enforcement provisions applicable to the AG’s office.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 17, 2015.

Decisions Based on Foreign Laws (Non-Family Law Proceedings)

HB 670 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Texas (Related Constitutional Amendment: HJR 32)

· Summary: HB 670 and HJR 32, filed by Rep. Dan Flynn (R - Canton), are similar to bills and related resolutions filed in 2011 and 2013 that failed to pass. HB 670 and HJR 32 would prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing “a ruling or decision” on “a foreign law,” or otherwise enforcing contract provisions that either require the application of a foreign law to a dispute or require parties to litigate their dispute in a forum outside of the United States if such provisions would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Texas Constitution.

· Fiscal Note for HB 670/HJR 32: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 670: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Several individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 670 begins around the 1:31:40 mark. HB 670 remains pending.

· Status of HJR 32: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Numerous individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 32 begins around the 1:02:35 mark. On April 16, 2015, the committee voted on the bill but it failed to pass out of committee.

HB 828 - Application of Foreign or International Laws or Doctrines

· Summary: HB 828, filed by Rep. Bill Zedler (R - Arlington), would prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing “a ruling or decision” on either “a foreign or international law or doctrine” or “a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.” HB 828 would also require a court to “uphold and apply the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, federal laws, and the laws of this state, including the doctrine that is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and known as the church autonomy doctrine.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on February 23, 2015.

Defamation/Libel

SB 627 - Relating to Certain Publications that are Privileged and Not Grounds for a Libel Action (Companion: HB 1766)

· Summary: SB 627, filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston), would amend Chapter 73 of the CPRC (Defamation Mitigation Act) to add the “publication of allegations made by a third party regarding matters of public concern, regardless of the truth or falsity of the allegations” to the list of publications that are privileged and not grounds for a libel action. It would also add the following sections: “[t]his section does not abrogate or lessen any other defense, remedy, immunity, or privilege available under other constitutional, statutory, case, or common law or rule provisions” and “[t]his section shall be construed liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent fully.” The companion bill (HB 1766) was filed by Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi).

· Bill Analysis for SB 627: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 627: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 627: On April 22, 2015, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 627. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 2, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups testifying for and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 627 begins around the 1:35:55 mark. On April 15, 2015, State Affairs approved a committee substitute for SB 627, which sought to further clarify that a journalist accurately reporting on third party allegations regarding matters of public concern could use the accuracy of such reporting as a defense to libel.)

· Fiscal Note for HB 1766: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1766: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted a committee substitute for HB 1766 out of committee on April 23, 2015. The committee substitute has yet to be posted. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups that either testified or registered a position on HB 1766: Witness List. TTLA, TLR, and the Texas Association of Broadcasters were among those who either testified or registered as being for the bill. No one testified against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1766 begins around the 2:45 mark.)

HB 4116 - Defense to Libel Actions

· Summary: HB 4116, filed by Rep. Todd Hunter (R - Corpus Christi), would amend section 73.005 of the CPRC by adding subsections (b) and (c), which would result in section 73.005 reading as follows:

Sec. 73.005. TRUTH A DEFENSE. (a) The truth of the statement in a publication on which a libel action is based is a defense to the action. (b) Subject to subsection (c), it is a defense to a libel action that the publication accurately reported the allegations of a third party regarding a matter of public concern. (c) Subsection (b) does not apply if: (i) the publication was made with actual malice; and (ii) the fact that the allegation was made is not itself a matter of public concern.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Elections

HB 25 - Elimination of Straight Ticket Voting for Judicial Offices (Companion: SB 1702)

· Summary: HB 25, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would eliminate straight ticket voting for judicial offices. HB 25 is virtually identical to SB 103 filed last session, which was voted out of committee but never was put to a vote before the full Senate. The companion bill, SB 1702, was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Fiscal Note for HB 25 / SB 1702: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 25: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Very few individuals testified either for, against, or on the bill. Those who did testify (or registered a position on the bill) are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 25 begins around the 5:40 mark. HB 25 remains pending.

· Bill Analysis for SB 1702: Senate Research Center

· Status of SB 1702: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Most witnesses who testified about the bill opposed it. Those who did testify (or registered a position without testifying) are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Broadcast Archive. Testimony about SB 1702 begins around the 1:42:00 mark. SB 1702 remains pending.

HB 1444 - Elimination of Straight-Party Voting in Certain Counties

· Summary: HB 1444, filed by Rep. Jason Villalba (R - Dallas), would amend section 52.071 of the Election Code to eliminate straight ticket voting for judicial offices and local executive offices in counties with a population over 1,000,000.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 5, 2015.

HB 2754 - Filing Requirements for Candidates for Certain Judicial Offices

· Summary: HB 2754, filed by Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R - Southlake), would repeal sections 172.021(e) and (g) of the Elections Code, which would eliminate the petition requirement for certain judicial candidates. Specifically, under HB 2754, candidates for the following judicial offices would no longer have to include a petition with their application and fee to get on the general primary election ballot:

o Chief Justice or justice of the Supreme Court;

o Presiding Judge or judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals;

o Chief justice or justice of a court of appeals in an appellate district in which a county with a population of more than one million is wholly or partly situated;

o district or criminal district judge of a court in a judicial district wholly contained in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million;

o judge of a statutory county court in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million; and

o justice of the peace in a county with a population of more than 1.5 million.

A similar (though not identical) bill (HB 3880) has been filed by Rep. Craig Goldman (R - Fort Worth). A public hearing was held in front of Elections at the same time as HB 2754. The committee voted HB 3880 out of committee on April 16, 2015 without amendment.

· Bill Analysis: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16, 2015, Elections voted HB 2754 out of committee (by a 6-0 vote, one absent) without amendments. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 30, 2015. Those who testified are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2754 begins around the 3:14:00 mark.)

Evictions

HB 3364 - Appeals of Eviction Suit Judgments

· Summary: HB 3364, filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston), would amend section 24.007 of the Property Code to prohibit appeals of county court judgments in eviction suits on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only. HB 3364 would add back in to section 24.007(a) the same language that was removed from the statute in 2011. The bill would also repeal section 24.007(b), which was enacted in 2011 and authorizes appeals of final judgments of a county court, statutory county court, statutory probate court, or district court in an eviction suit.

· Bill Status: Scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 28, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. or upon final adjournment/recess of the House. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast.

Family Law

HB 562 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Proceeding involving Marriage, a Suit for Dissolution of a Marriage/Affecting Parent-Child Relationship (Companion: SB 531)

· Summary: HB 562, filed by Rep. Jeff Leach (R - Plano), would prohibit a court or arbitrator in a family law matter from making a ruling or decision based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution or a statute of Texas. The companion bill, SB 531, was filed by Sen. Donna Campbell (R - New Braunfels). HB 562 and SB 531 are both similar to HB 899, which is summarized below.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status for HB 562: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 562, as amended, out of committee by a 7-2 vote. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Numerous individuals either testified for, against, or on the bill. They are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 562 begins around the 1:59:20 mark.)

· Bill Status for SB 531: Referred to State Affairs on February 18, 2015.

HB 899 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in Certain Family Law Proceedings

· Summary: Like HB 670, HB 899, filed by Rep. Pat Fallon (R - Little Elm), is similar to failed bills filed in prior sessions that would prohibit a court or arbitrator in suits involving the dissolution of a marriage from making a ruling or decision based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or a Texas statute.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 899 was scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, the bill was pulled so no action was taken.

SB 1090 - Application of Foreign Laws and Foreign Forum Selection in a Marriage/Divorce Proceeding or a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (Companion Bill: HB 3943)

· Summary: SB 1090, filed by Sen. Bob Hall (R - Rockwall), is similar to HB 562 (discussed above). The primary difference between SB 1090 and HB 562 is that SB 1090 would amend the Family Code to strictly prohibit a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator from basing a decision on a foreign law and from enforcing a contract provision involving a marriage or parent-child relationship that is based on a foreign law, regardless of whether the provision is substantive or procedural (i.e., forum selection or governing law clauses). SB 1090 does not limit the prohibition to only those instances in which the application of the foreign law violates a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or a Texas statute. The companion bill, HB 3943, was filed by Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R - Irving).

· Status of SB 1090: Referred to State Affairs on March 16, 2015.

HB 1195 - Disclosure by an Attorney Before Accepting Representation in a Marriage Dissolution Proceeding

· Summary: HB 1195, filed by Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R - Houston), would require an attorney to disclose certain information to a prospective client before agreeing to represent that client in a divorce proceeding. More specifically, HB 1195 would amend the Family Code to require: (1) the attorney to provide a prospective client with a disclosure form promulgated by the State Bar of Texas (SBOT); and (2) the client to acknowledge in writing that the client has received and understands the disclosure. The disclosure must include information about arbitration, mediation, collaborative law, and alternatives to retaining an attorney for the dissolution of a marriage, as well as any other information that the SBOT may require. HB 1195 is essentially the same bill that Rep. Bohac filed in 2013 (HB 3470), which died in committee.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: The committee on Juvenile Justice & Family Issues voted HB 1195 out of committee (without amendments) on April 8^th and sent it to Calendars on April 14^th. (Committee History: The committee had conducted a public hearing on March 25, 2015. A representative of the Texas Family Law Foundation testified in opposition to HB 1195. No other witnesses testified, but several individuals registered their position on the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1195 begins around the 22:35:00 mark.)

Governmental Immunity

HB 2375 - Liability of a Governmental Unit for Personal Injury and Death Caused by the Governmental Unit’s Negligence

· Summary: HB 2375, filed by Rep. Harold Dutton, Jr. (D - Houston), would amend section 101.021(2) of the CPRC and waive immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) for acts of employees that cause personal injury or death due to “the negligence of the governmental unit” if the governmental unit would otherwise be liable if it were a private person. Under HB 2375, negligence arising from “a condition or use of tangible personal or real property” would be eliminated from the TTCA.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

Health Care Liability

HB 956 - Scope of a Health Care Liability Claim

· Summary: HB 956, filed by Rep. Chris Turner (D - Arlington/Grand Prairie), is similar to the bill filed by Rep. Turner that failed to pass in 2013 (i.e., HB 2644). It is the legislative response to a series of Supreme Court cases addressing the scope of “health care liability claims” under the Texas Medical Liability Act, including Texas West Oaks Hospital, L.P. v. Williams. Specifically, HB 956 would amend the terms “claimant” and “health care liability claim” in Chapter 74 of the CPRC in an effort to “clarify” the meaning of those terms. Specifically, the term “claimant” would mean a “patient, including a deceased patient’s estate”, instead of “person, including a decedent’s estate.” The term “claimant” would include “both the patient and the party seeking recovery of damages” in cases in which “a party seeks recovery of damages related to injury of another person who is a patient, or other harm to the patient.” The bill would also amend the definition of “health care liability claim” to specify that such claims arise from “treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety directly related to health care…” [emphasis added] and that the term “does not include claims arising from an injury to or death of a person who is not a patient, including employment and premises liability claims.”

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: HB 956 was scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, the bill was pulled so no action was taken.

HB 1403 - Defining Health Care Liability Claim for Purposes of Certain Claims

· Summary: HB 1403, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would amend the definition of “health care liability claim” in Chapter 74 of the CPRC to not include a personal injury claim filed against an employer by an employee not covered by worker’s compensation insurance or the employee’s surviving spouse or heir.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted a committee substitute for HB 1403 out of committee on April 23, 2015. The committee substitute has yet to be posted. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Several witnesses testified either for or against the bill. Representatives from TLR and the Texas Nurses Association testified for HB 1403. TTLA testified against the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 1403 begins around the 11:10:45 mark.)

Insurance Claims

SB 1166 - Recovery of Damages for Delayed Payment of Certain Insurance Claims

· Summary: SB 1166, filed by Sen. Van Taylor (R - Plano), would amend the “Prompt Payment of Claims” section of the Insurance Code to provide additional instances in which an insurer would not be liable for damages due to a delay in paying on a first party claim. Under SB 1166, the damages-for-delay provisions would not apply if: (1) the amount of damages awarded as a result of arbitration or litigation is less than 80 percent of a settlement offer (as defined by section 42.001 of the CPRC) made by an insurer and rejected by the claimant; (2) a claimant fails to provide an affidavit of damages as defined by SB 1166; or (3) the insurer pays to the claimant the amount of damages awarded as a result of an appraisal no later than the 15th business day after the date the damages are awarded in the appraisal.

The “affidavit of damages” provisions in SB 1166 would require a claimant to provide an insurer with an affidavit containing the dollar amount of all damages the claimant intends to seek in a suit no later than the 30th day before the date the claimant commences the suit against the insurer. However, if a claimant ultimately seeks damages that exceed the amount in the claimant’s affidavit, the claimant would be required to provide the insurer with written notice of the excess amount by affidavit no later than the 15th day before the date the claimant files a pleading seeking the excess amount.

Under SB 1166, a claimant could also file a claim seeking damages as a “small claims case” (as provided by section 27.060 of the Government Code) if the disputed amount of the insurance claim does not exceed the maximum amount allowed for a small claims case as determined by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the total amount awarded in an action filed as a small claims case may not exceed two times the disputed amount of the claim. If a suit seeking damages is filed as a small claims case as provided by the Government Code, an insurer may elect to waive the insurer’s right to appeal no later than the 15th day after the date the suit is filed against the insurer.

Finally, SB 1166 would also amend section 542.060 of the Insurance Code to modify the damages provisions of that section. In addition to paying the amount of the claim, an insurer would be liable for interest only on the “disputed amount” of the claim, for reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, and, in small claims cases, for court costs if the insurer did not waive its right to appeal any judgment entered in the small claims case. SB 1166 would also add the following to the damages section of the “Prompt Payment of Claims” section of the Insurance Code: (1) the court will determine the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, but the amount of attorney’s fees must bear a reasonable relationship to the damages awarded by the trier of fact based on the disputed amount of the claim; (2) any interest awarded would begin to accrue on the date the claimant provided the affidavit of damages; and (3) an attorney cannot share attorney’s fees awarded with the claimant.

· Bill Status: Referred to Business & Commerce on March 17, 2015.

HB 3646 - Insurance Claims and Certain Prohibited Acts and Practices Relating to the Business of Insurance (Companion: SB 1628)

· Summary: HB 3646, filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo), would amend various sections of the Insurance Code to do, among other things, the following:

o The definition of “person” would no longer include an adjuster or any third-party individual or entity “engaged by an insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.”

o An insurer would be “solely responsible” for any “unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance” committed by an individual employed by the insurer as an adjuster or a third-party individual or entity engaged by the insurer to provide adjusting, estimating, consulting, engineering, or other services related to the insurer’s adjustment of a claim.

o An insured seeking damages in an action against an insurer would be required to provide written notice to the insurer at least 61 days prior to filing suit that includes a sworn statement containing the following information: (1) the specific damage items and the amount alleged to be owed by the insurer; (2) the amount of attorney’s fees the insured reasonably incurred in asserting the claim against the insurer; and (3) the amount that the insured will accept in full and final satisfaction of the claim. If the sworn statement included damage amounts sought by the insured not previously submitted to the insurer, the notice must contain: (1) a sworn statement signed by the insured stating the specific damage items, the amount alleged to be owed by the insured, and the reason the damage items were not previously submitted to the insurer; (2) copies of reports, estimates, photographs, and other items reasonably supporting the insured ’s additional damage items; (3) a statement that the insured will cooperate in allowing the insurer to inspect the insured property for purposes of investigating the additional damage items; (4) the amount of attorney’s fees the insured reasonably incurred in asserting the claim against the insurer; and (5) a stated amount that the insured will accept in full and final satisfaction of the claim.

o Establish a requirement in which a failure to provide requisite notice prior to filing suit would, in certain circumstances, be subject to dismissal.

o Establish a 2-year statute of limitations for providing notice to an insurer of certain claims for damages to or loss of real property or tangible personal property.

The companion bill, SB 1628, was filed by Sen. Larry Taylor (R - Friendswood).

· Fiscal Note for HB 3646: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 3646: Insurance conducted a public hearing on April 22, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups registered to testify for HB 3646, but the witness list has yet to be posted. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 3646 begins around the 3:27:55 mark. A committee substitute was proposed, but has yet to be posted. The bill was left pending.

· Bill Analysis for SB 1628: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1628: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1628: Business & Commerce voted a committee substitute for SB 1628 out of committee on April 20, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted its first public hearing on SB 1628 on March 31, 2015. Many witnesses either testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. Most of those who testified were against the bill; most who registered a position without testifying supported the bill. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1628 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1628 begins around the 1:50:40 mark.

A public hearing on the committee substitute for SB 1628 was conducted on April 14, 2015. Much like the first hearing, many witnesses either testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1628 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1628 begins around the 6:20 mark.)

HB 3697 - Texas Department of Insurance Study of Claims Data and Recovery of Attorney's Fees in First Party Claims

· Summary: HB 3697, filed by Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R - Odessa), would section 542.062 of the Insurance Code and limit the recovery of attorney's fees in first party insurance claims to an amount equal to the recoverable economic damages. Under HB 3697, the Department of Insurance would be required to research and evaluate claims data made in the past five years to compare and establish an understanding between first party claims made, legal actions filed by claimants to recover damages, and complaints made by claimants to the Department, if any.

· Bill Status: Referred to Insurance on March 19, 2015.

HB 3822 - Recovery under Uninsured/Underinsured Insurance Coverage (Companion: HB 3533)

· Summary: HB 3822, filed by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D - Houston), would amend the Insurance Code by adding provisions that prohibit an insurer from requiring, as a prerequisite to asserting an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim, a judgment or other legal determination establishing the other motorist's liability or uninsured/underinsured status. Further, a judgment or other legal determination would not be a prerequisite to asserting a claim for unfair/deceptive acts or practices or for violations of the prompt payment of claims provisions of the Insurance Code. Under HB 3822, an insurer would be required to attempt in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim once liability and damages have become reasonably clear.

Also, under HB 3822, prejudgment interest would begin to accrue on the earlier of: (1) the 180th day after the date the claimant notifies the insurer of the claim; or (2) the date on which suit is filed against the insurer to recover uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. Further, for purposes of recovering attorney's fees under section 38.002 of the CPRC, a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage would be considered presented when the insurer receives notice of the claim.

The companion bill, HB 3533, was filed by Rep. Sergio Munoz, Jr. (D - Mission).

· Status of HB 3822: Referred to Insurance on March 23, 2015.

· Status of HB 3533: Referred to Insurance on March 18, 2015.

Judicial Selection

HB 2088 - Interim Study Regarding the Method by Which Judges and Justices are Selected

· Summary: HB 2088, filed by Rep. Justin Rodriguez (D - San Antonio), would create a joint interim committee on judicial selection (consisting a five (5) members from both the House and Senate) to study and review the method by which district and appellate justices/judges are selected for office. The joint committee would be required to report its findings and recommendation to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the House by January 6, 2017. HB 2088 is similar to HB 2772 that passed last session and was signed by Governor; however, the joint committee never met and a report was never generated.

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were numerous individuals and groups that either testified or registered a position on HB 2088: Witness List. No one testified against the bill. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2088 begins around the 1:35:45 mark. The bill was left pending.

Judiciary/Court Administration

HB 1 / SB 2 - Appropriations Bills (Appellate Court Budget Only)

· Summary/Status: On April 1, 2015, the House voted (141-5) to pass its budget, which appropriated $793 million for the judiciary during the next biennium and included the above-referenced appropriations as recommended by the Appropriations Committee: CSHB 1 (the section of CSHB 1 related to the judiciary is located at pp. 485-528). The $793 million for the judiciary is $32 million more than proposed in the original budget and an almost 4% increase over the last biennium. The House-approved budget includes funding for the following:

· Basic Civil Legal Services – The Supreme Court would receive $61.4 million over the next biennium for basic civil legal services, of which $10 million would be dedicated for legal aid for sexual assault victims and $1.75 million for veterans.

· EFileTexas.gov – The Office of Court Administration (OCA) would receive $28.8 million for the biennium for EFileTexas.gov, which would be funded by $14.4 million collected each year from the $20 e-filing fee that litigants pay when they file civil lawsuits. OCA would also receive in excess of $900,000 each fiscal year to establish four new child protection courts.

· “Similar Funding for Same Size Courts” Block Grant – The intermediate appellate courts would receive the additional $6.4 million dollars needed to fund the remaining half of the “similar funding for same size courts” block grant.

On April 9^th, the Senate Finance Committee considered the House’s budget and approved (unanimously) a committee substitute that mirrored the Senate’s version of the budget. The Senate’s version of the budget was approved by the full Senate on April 14^th.

The preliminary House and Senate budgets for 2016 and 2017 included slight funding cuts for the judiciary. As originally filed, the House would appropriate $761.5 million to the judiciary for the biennium, a 0.3 percent decrease compared with the last budget. The Senate would give the judiciary $753.1 million, a 1.4 percent decrease.

The Supreme Court asked for additional funds in order to do, among other things, the following: (1) provide raises for staff attorneys, non-legal staff and clerks, as well as provide an increase in the travel budget for Supreme Court committees; and (2) provide legal services for veterans. The intermediate appellate courts jointly requested an additional $6.4 million dollars to fulfill the remaining half of their request for funds under the “similar funding for same size courts” model. [Note: Last session, the 83^rd Legislature passed a budget that included additional funding for intermediate appellate courts that represented half of the funding originally requested by the courts under the “similar funding for same size courts” model. The additional funds were used, in part, to provide targeted salary increases for legal and non-legal staff at the courts to restore some salaries and staff positions, as well as operating costs that were cut in previous fiscal years.] Further, in addition to the similar-funding-for-same-size-courts funds, the Austin and Fort Worth courts requested funds to hire more staff attorneys to help manage their respective caseloads.

Following the recommendations of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Articles I, IV & V, the full Appropriations Committee adopted the Subcommittee's Recommendations that included (1) additional funds for the Supreme Court to provide raises for legal staff and to provide basic civil legal services to veterans and sexual assault victims and (2) the intermediate appellate courts’ request for the additional $6.4 million dollars needed to fund the remaining half of the “similar funding for same size courts” block grant. A Senate Finance subcommittee has also accepted the Supreme Court’s and intermediate appellate courts’ request for these additional funds.

SB 64 - Appellate Court Procedures and Deadlines in Civil Actions

· Summary: SB 64, which is also known as the “Appellate Court Accountability Act”, was filed by Sen. Don Huffines (R – Dallas). SB 64 would establish deadlines for the Supreme Court and intermediate courts of appeals to act on civil appeals.

Supreme Court Deadlines

SB 64 would give the Supreme Court ninety (90) days from the date of filing to deny a petition for review if the court does not request a response and one hundred eighty (180) days if it does not request briefing. The Court would be required to grant or deny the petition no later than three hundred (300) days after the petition is filed if the Court requests briefing. If the Court determined that the issues presented in a petition were related to issues in another case for which a petition has been granted and a decision pending, it could place the petition on hold until the Court decided the prior case. At such time, the Court would be required to publish the names of the parties to the petitions and the issues the Court has determined to be related. Once a decision has been issued in the case for which a petition was placed on hold, the Court would have thirty (30) days to grant or deny the petition.

The bill would also require the Supreme Court to issue a decision for all cases in which the Court grants a petition during the ”term of court” (i.e., the State’s fiscal year) in which the petition for review was granted. If a petition is granted in June or later, the Court could carry the case into the next term under “extraordinary circumstances” but must explain the nature of the “extraordinary circumstances” in the order granting the petition. Any case carried over would have to be decided no later than December 31^st of the next term.

SB 64 would also require the Court to adopt written procedures that allocate responsibilities to individual justices. The chief justice would be required to enforce the procedures and deadlines against individual justices. Such enforcement options would include prohibiting a justice from participating in future oral arguments, reassigning opinions, prohibiting a justice from participating in a new case, and referring a justice to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Intermediate Appellate Court Deadlines

SB 64 would require the courts of appeals to announce whether oral argument has been granted in a civil appeal no later than sixty (60) days after the “final brief” is filed. Oral argument must be held no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the date the final brief has been filed, and the court must issue its decision no later than ninety (90) days after oral argument (if granted) or the date the court announces that oral argument is denied.

The chief justice of each court of appeals would be required to enforce the deadlines in the same manner as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as submit a quarterly report to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding the court’s compliance with the deadlines. If a court of appeals fails to comply, the Chief Justice may prohibit the filing of additional appeals in that court and order the transfer of appeals to other courts. If a court of appeals was prohibited from accepting new appeals, justices of that court would not be credited with state service for the time period during which the court would be prohibit from accepting appeals, and the Legislative Budget Board and Governor would be required to reduce the non-complying court’s budget and shift money to courts receiving transfers. By January 31^st of each year, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would be required to submit a compliance report with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 26, 2015.

SB 443 - Study and Recommendations on Consolidating the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court

· Summary: SB 443, filed by Sen. Kirk Watson (D - Austin), would require the Judicial Council to study and make recommendations as to whether the CCA and the Supreme Court should be consolidated or whether one court should be abolished and its functions and jurisdiction transferred to the other court.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on February 9, 2015.

SB 455 - Creation of a Special Three-Judge District Court (Companion: HB 1091)

· Summary: SB 455, filed by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R - Conroe), would amend the Government Code to create a procedural mechanism that would allow the Attorney General to petition the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the formation of a special three-judge panel to hear certain types of cases in which the State of Texas or an officer or agency of the State is a defendant. Proceedings in front of a three-judge panel would be mandatory in cases involving a claim that either (1) challenges the finances or operations of the public school system; or (2) involves the apportionment of districts for the Texas House, Texas Senate, U.S. Congress, State Board of Education, or the apportionment of state judicial districts. Three-judge panel proceedings would be discretionary in other cases in which the Attorney General certifies that the outcome of the case either (1) significantly impacts the finances of the State; (2) significantly alters the operations of important statewide policies or programs; or (3) is otherwise of exceptional statewide importance such that the case should not be decided by a single district judge. Under SB 455, the Chief Justice’s decision to either deny the AG’s petition or order that a discretionary proceeding be heard by a special three-judge district court would be considered final and not appealable; however, appeals “from an appealable interlocutory order of final judgment” of the three-judge court would be directly to the Supreme Court.

SB 455 provides that the three-judge district court would consist of the district judge to whom the case was assigned at the time the petition to the Chief Justice was submitted, a district judge chosen by the Chief Justice who has been elected by the voters of a county other than the county in which the case was filed, and a justice of a court of appeals chosen by the Chief Justice who has been elected by the voters of a judicial district other than the district in which the case was filed or in which the district judge chosen under the section sits. The three-judge court would be required to sit in the county in which the case was filed and would be subject to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; provided, however, that the Supreme Court may promulgate rules for the operation of the three-judge courts.

The companion bill, HB 1091, was filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston).

· Fiscal Note for SB 455: Legislative Budget Board

· Analysis for SB 455: Senator Research Center

· Status of SB 455: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 20, 2015. Several witnesses either testified or registered a position on the bill. The only witness who testified was a TTLA representative, who spoke in favor of the bill. TLR registered as being for the bill, while a representative of the NAACP and a Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund representative registered as being against SB 455. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 455 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 455 begins around the 22:55 mark. A committee substitute was offered, but has yet to be posted. The bill was left pending.

· Bill Analysis for HB 1091: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1091: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1091: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted a committee substitute for HB 1091 out of committee (5-4 vote). (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Several witnesses testified (or registered a position without testifying) about the bill. Most of those who testified or registered a position about the bill opposed it, including TTLA, the Texas Family Law Foundation, and TEX-ABOTA. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on HB 1091 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1091 begins around the 5:41:50 mark.)

SB 524 - Review of State Laws Requiring an Action or Proceeding to be Brought in Travis County or a Travis County Court (Companion: HB 1427)

· Summary: SB 524, filed by Sen. Brian Birdwell (R - Granbury) and Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D - McAllen), would create a commission to review Texas laws to identify each statute and state agency rule that requires an action or proceeding to be brought or considered in Travis County, a Travis County district or statutory county court, or the Third Court of Appeals. The commission would be required to make recommendations on whether the location of the action or proceeding in each statute or state agency rule serves a legitimate state purpose, other than the convenience of the state agency, that supersedes the interests of persons required to travel to Travis County to attend or participate in the action or proceeding or whether the identified statute or state agency rule should be revised to authorize an action or proceeding to be brought or considered in another Texas county. The companion bill, HB 1427, was filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo).

· Status of SB 524: Referred to Business & Commerce on February 18, 2015.

· Fiscal Note for HB 1427: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1427: HB 1427 was voted out of committee, without amendments, on April 2, 2015. (Committee History: General Investigating & Ethics conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2015. No one testified for, against, or on the bill. Only one person registered to take a position on the bill and it was a registration of support: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1427 begins around the 2:11:15 mark.)

SB 967 - Authority of a District Clerk to Collect Fees for Providing Electronic Copies of Certain Court Records

· Summary: SB 967, filed by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R - Houston), would amend section 51.318 of the Government Code to prohibit a district clerk from charging a fee for noncertified electronic copies of any electronic document on file or of record in the clerk’s office, unless the copy is provided in a bulk distribution.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on March 10, 2015.

SB 1116 - Notices or Documents Sent by Mail or Email by a Court, Court Clerk, or Judge (Companion: HB 2822)

· Summary: SB 1116, filed by Sen. Royce West (D - Dallas), would amend the Government Code to authorize a “court, justice, judge, magistrate, or clerk” to send any notice or document using mail or electronic mail and would apply to all civil and criminal statutes requiring delivery of a notice or document. However, authorized methods of delivery of electronic mail would not include facsimiles, instant messaging, messages on a social network website (including Facebook and Twitter), telegraphs, telephone messages, text messages, videoconferencing, voice messages, or webcams. The companion bill, HB 2822, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo).

· Bill Analysis for SB 1116: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1116: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1116: State Affairs unanimously voted a committee substitute for SB 1116 out of committee on April 22, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 16, 2015. Only three witnesses testified on SB 1116 (one in support of the bill; two simply “on” the bill), while several registered support for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List Senate Archived Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1116 begins around the 55:30 mark.)

· Fiscal Note for HB 2822: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 2822: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 2822 out of committee on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2015. Only one witness testified on HB 2822, while several registered support for the bill. Here is the witness list and a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Witness List House Archived Broadcast. Testimony about HB 2822 begins around the 11:26:10 mark.)

SB 1970 - Increase of Statewide Electronic Filing Fees

· Summary: SB 1970, filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston), would raise the statewide electronic filing system fund fee collected by various courts from $20 to $30.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 23, 2015. A few witnesses appeared to testify or register a position on the bill. The only witness who testified for the bill was a single probate court judge. A representative of the Family Law Foundation registered as being opposed to SB 1970. All of the witnesses who either testified or registered a position on SB 1970 are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1970 begins around the 34:45 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 427/HJR 49 - Creation of Texas Redistricting Commission

· Summary: HB 427 and HJR 49, filed by Rep. Donna Howard (D – Austin), would create the Texas Redistricting Commission (“TRC”), which would be responsible for adopting redistricting plans for the election of the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Senate, and the members of the United States House of Representatives elected from the state of Texas following each federal census. The TRC would also be responsible for reapportioning judicial districts in the event the Judicial Districts Board fails to reapportion the districts.

· Status of HB 427: Referred to Redistricting on February 16, 2015.

· Status of HJR 49: Referred to Redistricting on February 26, 2015.

HB 1122 - Number of Jurors Required in Certain Civil Cases Pending in Statutory County Court (Companion: SB 824)

· Summary: HB 1122, filed by Rep. Travis Clardy (R - Nacogdoches), would amend the Government Code to require that civil cases pending in a statutory county court in which the amount in controversy is $200,000 or more be tried before a jury of twelve (12) members. The bill would also require that the drawing of jury panels, the selection of jurors, and the related practice and procedure conform to that prescribed by law for district courts in the county where the statutory county court is located. The companion bill (SB 824) was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis for HB 1122: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1122: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1122: On March 17^th, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously approved a committee substitute that would authorize a commissioners court to reduce the jurisdiction of the county court to $200,000 in those counties in which the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200,000. The committee substitute for HB 1122 (CSHB 1122) has been sent to the Local & Consent Calendar. (Committee History: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1122 begins around the 2:00 mark.)

· Bill Analysis for SB 824: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 824: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 824: On March 31, 2015, a committee substitute was voted unanimously out of State Affairs and recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. Like the House version, the committee substitute that would authorize a commissioners court to reduce the jurisdiction of the county court to $200,000 in those counties in which the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $200,000, thus negating the need to use a twelve-person jury. (Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on March 23, 2015. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: Senate Archived Broadcasts. Testimony about SB 824 begins around the 36:44 mark.)

HB 1416 - Judicial Recusal Based on Political Contributions

· Summary: HB 1416, authored by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would require justices on the Supreme Court and judges on the CCA (but apparently not intermediate appellate court justices) to “recuse himself or herself from any case in which the justice or judge has in the preceding four years accepted political contributions…in a total amount of $2,500 or more” from “(1) a party to the case, (2) attorney of record in the case, (3) the law firm of an attorney of record in the case, (4) the managing agent of a party to the case, (5) a member of the board of directors of a party to the case, or (6) a general-purpose committee…that is established or administered by a person who is a party to the case.” Similar legislation was filed in 2009, 2011, and 2013, all of which died in committee.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 9, 2015.

HB 1603 - Creation of the Chancery Court and Court of Chancery Appeals to Hear Certain Cases

· Summary: HB 1603, filed by Rep. Jason Villalba (R - Dallas), would create a statewide specialized civil trial court and an appellate court to hear certain business-related litigation cases, such as actions against businesses, accusations of wrongdoing by businesses or their members, disputes between businesses, violations of Business Organizations Code, Finance Code, and Business & Commerce Code. This court would have no jurisdiction over governmental entities (absent the government entity invoking or consenting to jurisdiction) or personal injury cases unless agreed to by the parties and the court. Some of the other notable components of the bill are:

o The chancery court would be composed of seven (7) judges who are appointed by the governor for staggered six (6) year terms. The judges would be selected from a list of qualified candidates compiled by a bipartisan advisory council (Chancery Court Nominations Advisory Council) and would be required to have at least 10 years of experience in complex business law.

o The court clerk would be located in Travis County, but individual judges would be based in the county seat of their respective counties.

o Current venue rules would apply, but cases could be heard in an agreed-upon county or where the court may decide to be more convenient or necessary.

o There would be a removal procedure for cases filed in a district court.

o The Courts of Chancery Appeals, which would handle appeals from the chancery trial court, would be composed of seven (7) justices from current court of appeals justices that are appointed by the governor based on a list of qualified candidates compiled by the advisory council. Justices would serve six (6) year terms and would hear cases in panels of three (3) randomly-selected justices. Appeals from the CCA would go to the Supreme Court.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 16^th, Business & Industry voted HB 1603 out of committee (by a 4-3 vote). The bill’s author intends to amend the bill once it reaches the House floor. The amendments are intended to exempt certain types of cases from the subject matter jurisdiction of the chancery court and increase the minimum amount in controversy for chancery court cases. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill. Those testifying in support of HB 1603 included former Chief Justice Tom Phillips and a representative from the Texas Business Law Foundation. Those testifying against the bill included representatives from TTLA, TADC, and TEX-ABOTA. Here is a complete list of those who testified or otherwise registered a position on the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1603 begins around the 2:28:30 mark.) Note: During the weeks of April 6^th and April 13^th respectively, the SBOT granted the requests of the Litigation Section and Judicial Section to oppose HB 1603. The Business Law Section has been given permission to support the bill.

HB 1656 - Public Financing of Campaigns for Appellate Judicial Offices

· Summary: HB 1656, filed by Rep. Rafael Anchia (D - Dallas), is essentially the same bill that Rep. Anchia filed in 2013 (HB 1126) and died in committee. HB 1656 would affect the manner in which appellate justice/judge campaigns are financed by providing a public financing option for eligible candidates. Specifically, under HB 1656, a candidate could request public financing by filing a petition signed by a specific number of qualified voters who also make a minimum contribution to the candidate’s campaign. Once the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) declares that a candidate has met the eligibility standards, the candidate could begin receiving distributions from the fund and could no longer accept contributions from private contributors or benefit from the direct campaign expenditures on the candidate’s behalf. The fund would be composed of any amounts appropriated or gifted, as well as by civil penalties levied by the TEC.

· Bill Status: Referred to Elections on March 9, 2015.

HB 2730 - Creation of Fifteenth District Court of Appeals

· Summary: HB 2370, filed by Rep. Phil Stephenson (R - Rosenberg), would create the Fifteenth District Court of Appeals, which would sit in Edinburg and be composed of Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties. The court would consist of three (3) justices. Under HB 2370, the number of justices on the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals would be reduced to three (3) justices.

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2015. There were several individuals and groups registered to testify for, on, or against HB 2730: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 2730 begins around the 1:04:00 mark. The bill was left pending.

HB 3426 - Jurisdiction of Statutory County Courts at Law

· Summary: HB 3426, filed by Rep. Gilbert Pena (R - Pasadena), would amend section 25.0003(c)(1) of the Government Code and modify the jurisdiction of statutory county courts at law in the following manner:

“civil cases in which the matter in controversy exceeds $500 but does not exceed $200,000, excluding interest [, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney ’s fees and costs, as alleged on the face of the petition].”

In other words, under HB 3426, statutory or punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs would be included in determining the amount in controversy for purposes of determining jurisdiction.

· Bill Status: HB 3426 had been scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 14, 2015. However, no action was taken by the committee as the author had asked that the hearing be rescheduled.

HB 3430 - Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

· Summary: HB 3430, filed by Rep. Mike Schofield (R - Houston), would amend Chapter 22 of the Government Code and essentially require that the Supreme Court be given an opportunity to review any constitutional rulings by the Court of Criminal Appeals before the rulings became final and effective. More specifically, HB 3430 would add the following sections 22.1025 and 22.002(f) to the Government Code:

Sec. 22.1025: “(a) Any ruling by the court of criminal appeals that any statute, rule, or procedure violates either the state or federal constitutions shall not be final and shall have no effect until the later of: (1) 60 days following the ruling; or (2) The denial or dismissal of a petition filed in the supreme court pursuant to Section 22.002(f) of the Government Code.”

Section 22.002(f): “Whenever the court of criminal appeals determines that a statute, rule, or procedure is unconstitutional, the supreme court, on the petition of the attorney general or a district or county attorney, has original civil jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto and mandamus to correct any error in the court of criminal appeals ’ determination.” Section 22.002(f) would apply regardless of whether (1) the CCA rules under the Texas Constitution, U.S. Constitution, or both; (2) the constitutional ruling by the CCA is characterized as criminal or civil; or (3) the ruling by the CCA is characterized as final or non-final.

· Bill Status: Scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 28, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. or upon final adjournment/recess of the House. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast.

HJR 62 - Constitutional Amendment Regarding the Recording and Publication of Certain Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals Proceedings (Related Bill: HB 3932)

· Summary: HJR 62, filed by Rep. Rep. Terry Canales (D- Edinburg), would amend the Texas Constitution and require the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals to make a video recording (or other electronic visual and audio recording) of each oral argument, proceeding, and open meeting of each court and post the recording on each court’s website. Rep. Canales subsequently filed HB 3932 to correct some of the issues raised by the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence during the March 10^th hearing on HJR 62 (discussed below).

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HJR 62: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. Although no witnesses testified against the concept, there was much discussion about the scope of the resolution (e.g., whether “proceedings” would encompass internal conferences, etc.) and whether a constitutional amendment was the correct vehicle to impose the recording requirement. The Supreme Court already records oral argument and other public meetings and posts the recordings on its website, so much of the discussion centered around the CCA. For those interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 62 begins around the 1:09 mark. HJR 62 remains pending.

· Status of HB 3932: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

HJR 81 - Constitutional Amendment to Change the Terms of District Court Judges to Six Years

· Summary: HJR 81, filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would increase the terms of district court judges from four years to six years. A similar bill was filed in 2013, but failed to get out of committee.

HJR 90 - Constitutional Amendment to Abolish the Court of Criminal Appeals

· Summary: HJR 90, also filed by Rep. Richard Raymond (D - Laredo), would abolish the CCA and give jurisdiction of criminal appeals to the Supreme Court. Similar legislation was filed in 2009, 2011, and 2013, each of which died in committee. Under HJR 90, death penalty cases would be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, while all other criminal cases would go through the court of appeals. In non-death penalty cases that make it to the Supreme Court, the justices would sit in panels of three. The Supreme Court would hear death penalty cases en banc.

· Status of HJR 90: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Lawsuit Financing/Lending

HB 3454 - Assignment of Rights in an Individual's Legal Claim

· Summary: HB 3454, filed by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D - Houston), seeks to regulate “civil justice funding” transactions and “civil justice funding companies,” and would permit a civil justice funding company to enter into a “non-recourse transaction in which [the] civil justice funding company purchases, and a consumer assigns to the company, a contingent right to receive an amount of the potential proceeds of a settlement, judgment, award, or verdict obtained in the consumer’s legal claim” provided that the transaction is documented via a written contract that complies with the requirements set forth in the statute. The bill specifies that a civil justice funding transaction may not be considered a loan or subject to state laws governing loans (including limits on interest rates). A similar bill (HB 1254) was filed by Rep. Thompson in 2013, but it died in committee.

· Bill Status: Scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 28, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. or upon final adjournment/recess of the House. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast.

HB 3218 - Litigation Finance Agreements

· Summary: HB 3218, filed by Rep. Anna Hernandez (D - Houston), would add Chapter 354 to the Finance Code and establish statutory requirements for “litigation financing agreements.” Under HB 3218, a litigation financing agreement would be defined as an agreement under which “money is provided to or on behalf of a consumer by a litigation financing company for a purpose other than prosecuting the consumer’s legal claim” and “the repayment of the money is in accordance with a litigation financing transaction the terms of which are included as part of the litigation financing agreement.”

HB 3218 would require litigation financing agreements to: (1) be in writing; (2) contain the initials of the consumer on each page; and (3) be “otherwise complete” when presented to the consumer for signature. Other required terms and disclosures, which must be on the front page of the agreement under appropriate headings, would include the following: (1) the funded amount to be paid to the consumer by the litigation financing company; (2) an itemization of one-time charges; (3) the total amount to be assigned by the consumer to the company, including the funded amount and all charges; and (4) a payment schedule that: (a) includes the funded amount and charges; and (b) lists all dates and the amount due at the end of each 180-day period from the funding date until the due date of the maximum amount due to the company by the consumer to satisfy the amount owed under the agreement.

A similar bill (HB 1595) was voted out of committee last session, but was never voted on by the entire House.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

Patent Infringement Claims

SB 1187 - Patent Infringement Claims (Companion: HB 3176)

· Summary: SB 1187, filed by Sen. Van Taylor (R - Plano), would add Chapter 2005 to the Business & Commerce Code and prohibit bad faith patent infringement claims. More specifically, SB 1187 would prohibit a person from sending a demand letter that makes, in bad faith, a claim of patent infringement against a Texas resident, and in connection with the claim: (1) files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement; (2) threatens to file a lawsuit if the alleged patent infringement is not resolved; or (3) makes a demand for compensation or damages or payment of a license fee based on the alleged patent infringement. For purposes of SB 1187, a person makes a claim of patent infringement in bad faith if: (1) the claim is objectively baseless, meaning that no reasonable litigant could reasonably expect success on the merits; and (2) the person making the claim knows or should have known that the claim is objectively baseless. However, a claim of patent infringement would be presumed to be made in good faith if the claim is made by a person who holds a certificate of authority issued by the Attorney General under Chapter 2005 or is a claim for relief arising under federal law.

SB 1187 would not create a private cause of action, but would authorize the Attorney General to enforce any violations of Chapter 2005. The bill would also create two information databases-- one for persons sending demand letters and another for the demand letters themselves, both of which would be maintained by the Secretary of State.

The companion bill, HB 3176, was filed by Rep. John Smithee (R - Amarillo).

· Bill Analysis of SB 1187: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note for SB 1187: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 1187: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 9, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1187 begins around the 39:10:00 mark. A committee substitute was offered that deletes any criminal penalty for barratry, but has yet to be posted. The bill remains pending.

· Status of HB 3176: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 23, 2015.

SB 1457 - Bad Faith Patent Infringement Claims

· Summary: SB 1457, filed by Sen. Robert Nichols (R - Jacksonville), would amend the Business and Commerce Code by adding an additional subchapter to the DTPA entitled "Bad Faith Claims of Patent Infringement." Like SB 1187/HB 3176, the bill would prohibit bad faith claims of patent infringement. However, unlike SB 1187/HB 3176, SB 1457 would define a bad faith claim as one that includes an allegation of infringement and (a) falsely states that the sender has filed a lawsuit in connection with the claim; (b) the claim is objectively baseless; and (c) the communication is likely to materially mislead the recipient because it does not include the identity of the person asserting the claim, the patent that is alleged to have been infringed, and at least one product, service or activity that is alleged to infringe the patent. Under SB 1457, "objectively baseless" would mean that (a) the sender does not have a current right to license the patent or to enforce the patent; (b) the patent has been held invalid or unenforceable in a final judgment or administrative decision; or (c) the infringing activity occurred after the patent expired.

SB 1457 would authorize the Attorney General to bring an action if it believes that the prohibition against bad faith claims of patent infringement has been violated. The Attorney General could also seek injunctive relief and a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000 for each violation as well as reimbursement to the State of Texas of the “reasonable value of investigating and prosecuting a violation” and restitution to the victim for “legal and professional expenses related to the violation.”

The bill specifically states that it would not prohibit a person with rights to license and enforce a patent from notifying others of their ownership, offering it for license, notifying any person of infringement under federal law, or seeking compensation for past or present infringement or for a license to the patent. Finally, SB 1457 also provides that the knowing institution of a suit or claim for patent infringement that constitutes a bad faith claim of patent infringement under the DTPA would be a Class A misdemeanor.

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: On April 21, 2015, the full Senate unanimously passed SB 1457. (Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on April 9, 2015. Several witnesses testified and/or registered as being either for, on, and against the bill: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 1457 begins around the 39:10:00 mark. On April 15, 2015, the committee unanimously voted the committee substitute out of committee. The substitute deleted any criminal penalty for barratry.)

Probate Court Proceedings

SB 512 - Promulgation of Forms for Use in Probate Matters

· Summary: SB 512, filed by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D - Laredo), would require the Supreme Court to promulgate appropriate forms and instructions for the use of certain forms by individuals representing themselves in certain probate matters or making certain wills, including forms for use in: (1)Aa small estate affidavit proceeding under the Estates Code; (2) the probate of a will as a muniment of title under the Estates Code; and (3) the making of a will for married and unmarried individuals. A similar, though not identical, bill (HB 2196) has been filed in the House by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (R - Houston).

· Bill Analysis: Senate Research Center

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of SB 512: On March 24, 2015, the full Senate passed SB 512 by a 30-1 vote. SB 512 has been sent to the House for consideration. (Committee History: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 9, 2015. Those who testified about the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in listening to the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast (audio only) of the hearing: Senate Archive Broadcast. Testimony about SB 512 begins around the 2:16 mark. A committee substitute was offered to make the bill identical to HB 2196. The bill was unanimously voted out of committee on March 16, 2015.)

· Status of HB 2196: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

Product Liability Claims

HB 1988 - Liability of Manufacturers and Sellers for Misuse of Products

· Summary: HB 1988, filed by Rep. Drew Springer (R - Gainesville), would amend Chapter 82 of the CPRC to address the liability of a product manufacturer or seller for the subsequent misuse of a product. More specifically, the bill would add section 82.0045 to the CPRC and provide that, in a products liability action, a manufacturer or seller would not be liable “for any claim arising out of harm caused by misuse of a product by a person other than the manufacturer or seller.” HB 1988 would also allow the court to, on its own motion and after reasonable notice to the parties, dismiss a claim filed after September 1, 2015, “if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim was caused by misuse of a product by a person other than the manufacturer or the seller.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 12, 2015.

Qualifications for Public Office and Term Limits

SJR 6 - Constitutional Amendment to Provide Qualifications for and Limit the Time that a Person May Serve in Certain Offices

· Summary: SJR 6, filed by Sen. Don Huffines (R – Dallas), proposes a constitutional amendment that would place terms limits on legislators (12 years) and would limit the amount of time that a legislator could serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives or as a committee chair. SJR 6 would also impose term limits on almost the entire Texas judiciary. For example, SJR 6 would bar Supreme Court justices and CCA judges from re-election if they had previously been elected to two full terms; however, the intermediate appellate court justices would not be subject to the term limits imposed under the current version of SJR 6. SJR 6 would also apply to "every district office or office of a political subdivision of this state that is filled by popular election," which appears to include district judges, county court-at-law judges, justices of the peace and county and district attorneys. All would be ineligible for re-election if they had served eight years or more. SJR 6 would become effective in 2016.

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on January 27, 2015.

SJR 24 - Constitutional Amendment Limiting to Two the Number of Consecutive Terms for Which a Person may be Elected or Appointed to Hold Certain State Offices (Companion: HJR 38)

· Summary: SJR 24, filed by Sen. Kevin Eltife (R - Tyler), would prohibit a person who has been elected or appointed to serve two consecutive terms in an office listed in Article IV, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution (i.e., Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Commissioner of the General Land Office, and Attorney General), as well as “any other statewide elective office, other than a statewide judicial office,” from serving for a third consecutive term. However, SJR would not limit a person ’s eligibility for election or appointment to serve nonconsecutive terms. The companion resolution, HJR 38, was filed by Rep. Lyle Larson (R - San Antonio).

· Status of SJR 24: Referred to State Affairs on February 2, 2015.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HJR 38: State Affairs conducted a public hearing on the bill on March 18, 2015. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HJR 38 begins around the 2:07:45 mark. The resolution remains pending.

Survival Actions

HB 3416 - Authority of Certain Persons to Bring a Survival Action

· Summary: HB 3416, filed by Rep. Larry Phillips (R - Sherman), would amend section 71.021 of the CPRC by adding the following section (b-1): “A legal representative of the estate of the injured person may bring the action or, if no action is filed by a legal representative of the estate, one or more heirs may bring the action for the benefit of all heirs and the estate of the injured person.”

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 17, 2015.

Trial Court Procedure

SB 1534 – Venue in Lawsuits Filed Against the State of Texas or State Agency

· Summary: SB 1534, filed by Rep. Konni Burton (R - Colleyville), would amend the CPRC to add section 15.021, which would provide that a lawsuit against the State of Texas or a state agency may be brought in either Travis County or “a county in which the court of appeals is held for a court of appeals district that includes the county in which the plaintiff: (a) resided at the time of the accrual of the cause of action; or (b) resides at the time the suit is brought.”

· Bill Status: Referred to State Affairs on March 23, 2015.

HB 241 - Substituted Service of Citation Through Social Media

· Summary: HB 241, filed by Rep. Jeff Leach (R - Plano), would add section 17.302 to the CPRC and permit a court to authorize service of process via electronic communication through a “social media presence” if substituted service is authorized under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. HB 241 would also require the Supreme Court to promulgate rules to provide for substituted service through social media. Rep. Leach filed a similar bill in 2013 (HB 1989), but it died in committee.

· Fiscal Note: Legislative Budget Board

· Bill Status: Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence unanimously voted HB 241 out of committee, without amendment, on April 23, 2015. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2015. There was a considerable amount of discussion about the appropriateness of serving a defendant via social media. Those who testified for and against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 241 begins around the 13:20 mark.)

HB 1692 - Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens (Companion: SB 1942)

· Summary: HB 1692, filed by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R - Dallas), would amend section 71.051(e) of the CPRC and provide that, in determining whether a case should be dismissed under the forum non conveniens provisions, the “plaintiff’s choice of a forum…shall be given substantial deference, provided that the plaintiff is a legal resident of the state and the underlying litigation has a significant connection to this state.” HB 1692 would also eliminate the “legal resident” definition and add to the definition of “plaintiff” the following: “an intervenor, beneficiary, next friend, or other derivative party to the plaintiff ’s claim” and “a decedent ’s estate, if the decedent was not a legal resident of this state at the time of death.” The companion bill (SB 1942) was filed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R - Houston).

· Analysis for HB 1692: House Research Organization

· Fiscal Note for HB 1692: Legislative Budget Board

· Status of HB 1692: On April 16, 2015, Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence voted HB 1692 out of committee by a 5-4 vote. (Committee History: The committee conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015. Those who testified either for, on, or against the bill are listed here: Witness List. For those who are interested in watching the proceedings, here is a link to the archived broadcast of the hearing: House Broadcast Archive. Testimony about HB 1692 begins around the 4:14:00 mark.)

· Status of SB 1942: Referred to State Affairs on March 25, 2015.

HB 2211 - Agreed Venue Selection in Civil Actions

· Summary: HB 2211, filed by Rep. John Wray (R - Waxahachie), would amend CPRC section 15.020 and require a court to transfer an action to another county if the parties consent to the transfer and the motion to transfer is filed before trial begins.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 13, 2015.

Wrongful Life/Birth Causes of Action

HB 1367 - Elimination of Wrongful Life/Birth Causes of Action

· Summary: HB 1367, filed by Rep. Gilbert Pena (R - Pasadena), would amend the CPRC to expressly eliminate “wrongful life” and “wrongful birth” causes of action.

· Bill Status: Referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on March 9, 2015.

HB 3008 - Elimination of Wrongful Birth Cause of Action

· Summary: HB 3008, filed by Rep. Ron Simmons (R - Carrollton), would amend the CPRC to expressly prohibit a cause of action and damages arising on a claim that “but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted.”

· Bill Status: Scheduled for public hearing in front of Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 28, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. or upon final adjournment/recess of the House. Here is the meeting notice and a link to the live broadcast of the hearing: Notice of Public Hearing House Live Broadcast.