Trial: statement of decision.

Assembly Member Pacheco’s measure frames a phased reform of California’s civil-trial rulings, pairing a temporary framework for statements of decision and judgment timing with a transition to a comprehensive, permanent regime on January 1, 2027. The centerpiece is a formal, written statement of decision process that would govern post-trial explanations of the court’s ruling, coupled with a fixed timeline for when judgments must be entered, anchored to whether a statement of decision has been requested and finalized. The measure also tasks the Judicial Council with developing the necessary rules and forms to implement the new procedures.

In the temporary phase, trials conducted in the court on questions of fact would require a request for a statement of decision to be made in writing (or orally if there is an official transcription) before the matter is submitted for decision, specifying the controverted issues for which a decision is requested. The statement of decision remains ordinarily in writing, though for very short trials the court may produce it on the record in the presence of the parties. The court could issue a written statement even without a timely request, and it may order a party to draft a proposed statement for the court to issue. The provision also directs service of the statement on all parties who appeared at trial and allows objections to be filed within a set period, with potential hearings. Concurrently, the temporary changes to judgment timing preserve the existing rule that judgments in nonjury trials are entered immediately upon the court’s decision, while jury-trial judgments continue to be entered within 24 hours of verdict; these timing rules are structured to sunset on January 1, 2027.

The permanent framework, effective January 1, 2027, would codify a written-first regime for statements of decision with explicit filing, service, and objection procedures. A written SOD would be the default for trials on questions of fact, with timely requests required in writing (or orally if an official transcript exists) before submission, and the SOD must be served on all appeared parties. If no timely SOD request is made, the court may still issue a ruling without an SOD or issue an SOD at its discretion. The process permits a court to order a party to prepare a draft SOD, after which the court issues its final SOD, and it provides a structured objections timeline—10 days to file objections after service, with possible hearings and a final SOD that becomes final upon the court’s ruling if objections are sustained or overruled. A finality framework then drives a 30‑day clock for entry of judgment, whether after the decision without an SOD or after the SOD becomes final. The measure also introduces a proposed judgment mechanism subject to the usual 10‑day objection window, while allowing extensions and, in family-law matters, potential short‑enings of deadlines by court order with a showing of good cause. Implementing forms and rules would be developed by the Judicial Council to explain how to request an SOD and how to comply with the new requirements, and the permanent regime ties the operative judgment-entry timing to the finalization of the SOD. The permanent changes also preserve a jury-trial rule for judgment entry within 24 hours after verdict, while nonjury judgments would be entered within 30 days after the decision or after the SOD becomes final, whichever applies.

Together with the transitional dates, the measure assigns the Judicial Council a central role in rulemaking and form creation to operationalize the SOD framework and the new timing rules. Practitioners and court staff would need to track the status of SOD requests, the drafting process, and the finality of any objections to determine the correct window for judgment entry. The measure does not specify appropriations, but it establishes a fiscal-committee review to assess potential administrative costs associated with adopting new forms, issuing SODs, and handling objections and drafts, alongside the anticipated workload changes for trial courts and the appellate process.