As of October 11, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed the following bills. These bills affect or implement changes in existing statutes, and in some instances create changes in legal procedure, and may be of interest to the legal community in general. For the full text of these bills and others signed by the Governor, go to California Legislative Information.
SB 78 – Criminal Procedure: Factual Innocence. Existing law authorizes a person who is unlawfully imprisoned under specified circumstances, including, without limitation, conviction on the basis of false evidence or the existence of new exculpatory evidence, to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus ordering their release. Existing law also authorizes such a person who is no longer in custody to prosecute a motion to vacate a judgment.
Under existing law, if the district attorney stipulates to or does not contest the factual allegations underlying the application for the writ or motion, the district attorney is required to provide notice to the Attorney General.
This bill would require that notice be given no less than 7 days before entering a stipulation.
SB 365 – Civil Procedure: Arbitration. Existing law authorizes a party to appeal, among other things, an order dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration. Existing law generally stays proceedings in the trial court on the judgment or order appealed from when the appeal is perfected, subject to specified exceptions. This bill provides that, notwithstanding the general rule described above, trial court proceedings would not be automatically stayed during the pendency of an appeal of an order dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration.
SB 464 – Criminal Law: Rights of Victims and Witnesses of Crimes. Existing law requires a prosecuting attorney, upon the request of a victim or a witness of a crime, to inform the victim or witness by letter of the final disposition of the case within 60 days of the final disposition.
This bill would instead require the prosecuting attorney, upon the request of a victim or a witness of a crime, to inform the victim or witness by letter of the final disposition of the case within 30 days.
SB 848 – Employment: Leave for Reproductive Loss. Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to grant a request by any employee to take up to 5 days of bereavement leave upon the death of a family member.
This bill would additionally make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 5 days of reproductive loss leave following a reproductive loss event, as defined. The bill would require that leave be taken within 3 months of the event, except as described, and pursuant to any existing leave policy of the employer. The bill would provide that if an employee experiences more than one reproductive loss event within a 12-month period, the employer is not obligated to grant a total amount of reproductive loss leave time in excess of 20 days within a 12-month period. Under the bill, in the absence of an existing policy, the reproductive loss leave may be unpaid. However, the bill would authorize an employee to use certain other leave balances otherwise available to the employee, including accrued and available paid sick leave. The bill would make leave under these provisions a separate and distinct right from any right under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
The bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against an individual, as described, because of the individual’s exercise of the right to reproductive loss leave or the individual’s giving of information or testimony as to reproductive loss leave, as described. The bill would require the employer to maintain employee confidentiality relating to reproductive loss leave, as specified.
Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
SB 696 – Notaries Public. Existing law authorizes the Secretary of State to appoint and commission notaries public in the number the Secretary of State deems necessary for the public convenience. Existing law requires a notary public to keep one active sequential journal at a time of all official acts performed as a notary public. Existing law authorizes notaries public to act as notaries in any part of the state and prescribes the manner and method of notarizations. Existing law establishes various requirements to ensure the security of notary seals and imposes a civil penalty for a violation of those provisions.
This bill would give effect to a notarial act performed in another state, under the authority and within the jurisdiction of a federally recognized Indian tribe, under federal law, or under the authority and within the jurisdiction of a foreign state, as if it were performed by a notarial officer of this state, if specified conditions are met.
This bill would authorize a notary public or an applicant for appointment as a notary public to apply for registration with the secretary to be a notary public authorized to perform online notarizations by submitting an application that meets certain requirements. The bill would also require an entity to register with the Secretary of State as an online notarization platform or depository before providing an online notarization system or depository, as defined, to an online notary public. The bill would require a representative of an online notarization platform to certify compliance with applicable laws under penalty of perjury. The bill also creates a civil cause of action against an online notarization platform or depository for a violation of those laws. The bill would require the Secretary of State to develop an application for registration and establish rules to implement the bill.
This bill would authorize the Secretary of State to charge an applicant a fee for an application for registration in an amount necessary to administer the bill’s provisions related to online notarizations. The bill would authorize an online notary public to perform notarial acts and online notarizations by means of audio-video communication. The bill would specify that any state law requirement that a principal, as defined, appear before or in the presence of the notary public shall be satisfied by appearing by means of audio-video communication before a notary public authorized to perform online notarization in compliance with specified requirements. The bill would establish various requirements applicable to an online notary public, including requiring an online notary public to record each online notarial act performed by the notary public in one tangible sequential journal and one or more secure electronic journals, as specified, requiring an electronic notarial certificate to be in a specified form that is required to be signed under penalty of perjury, and requiring an online notary public to take all necessary measures to disable the electronic affixation of the notary public’s electronic signature or seal upon termination of a commission, as specified. The bill would require a manufacturer or vendor of the notary public’s electronic seal to apply to the Secretary of State to be assigned an identification number, as specified.
This bill would establish various requirements applicable to an online notarization platform, including prohibiting an online notarization platform or depository from accessing, using, sharing, selling, disclosing, producing, providing, releasing, transferring, disseminating, or otherwise communicating the contents of an online notarial act, with specified exceptions. The bill would also make other conforming changes. The bill would impose requirements for ensuring the security of an electronic signature or electronic seal and would make a violation of those provisions subject to civil penalties. The bill would make a violation of those provisions grounds for refusal or revocation of a commission as a notary public.
This bill would specify that a business, as defined, commencing on January 1, 2025, consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of California for transactions related to an individual for whom a remote online notarial act is performed who has represented to the business that they are located in California. For these transactions, the bill would require a business to comply with specified requirements, including creating an encrypted electronic journal entry for each remote online notarial act and an audio-video recording of the audio-video communication of each remote online notarial act facilitated by the business. The bill would also create a civil cause of action against a business for a violation of those laws.
This bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person who, without authorization, knowingly obtains, conceals, damages, or destroys the certificate, disk, coding, card, program, software, or hardware enabling an online notary public to affix an official electronic signature or seal. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for an online notary public to willfully fail or refuse to either retain the electronic journal for 10 years after the performance of the last notarial act chronicled in the electronic journal or deliver all notarial records and papers to the Secretary of State within 30 days of when the online notary public resigns, is disqualified, is removed from office, or allows the online notary public’s registration to expire. By creating new crimes, and by expanding the scope of the existing crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
SB 428 – Temporary Restraining Orders and Protective Orders: Employee Harassment. Existing law authorizes any employer, whose employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any individual that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, to seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction on behalf of the employee and other employees of the employer. Existing law requires an employer seeking a temporary restraining order to show reasonable proof that an employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence and that a great or irreparable harm would result to an employee if the order is not issued. Existing law prohibits issuing such an order to the extent that the order would prohibit constitutionally protected speech, specified activities related to dispute resolution between employers and employee organizations, or other law.
This bill would additionally authorize any employer whose employee has suffered harassment, as defined, to seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction on behalf of the employee and other employees upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence that an employee has suffered harassment, that great or irreparable harm would result to an employee, and that the respondent’s course of conduct served no legitimate purpose. The bill would also require an employer seeking such a temporary restraining order to provide the employee whose protection is sought the opportunity to decline to be named in the order, before the filing of the petition. The bill would expressly prohibit a court from issuing such an order to the extent that the order would prohibit speech or activities protected by the federal National Labor Relations Act or specified provisions of law governing the communications of exclusive representatives of public employees.
This bill’s provisions would become operative on January 1, 2025.
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by SB 553 to be operative only if this bill and SB 553 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
SB 235 – Civil Discovery. Amends Section 2023.050 of, and to amend, repeal, and add Section 2016.090 of, the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions. The Civil Discovery Act authorizes the court, with the stipulation of the parties to a civil action other than an unlawful detainer or small claims action, to order the parties to provide initial disclosures to the other parties to the action within 45 days of the court’s order. Existing law requires a party providing initial disclosures to provide information regarding persons who have information, or records containing information, supporting the party’s claims and defenses, and information regarding agreements which would make a person or an insurance company liable to satisfy a judgment in the action through reimbursement or indemnification. Existing law requires a party to supplement or correct such a disclosure or response, as specified. Existing law requires initial disclosures to be verified by the party under penalty of perjury. Under existing law, these provisions do not apply to unlawful detainer actions or actions brought in the small claims division of a court, as specified.
This bill would instead require each party that has appeared in a civil action to provide initial disclosures, as specified, to the other parties to the action within 60 days of a demand by any party to the action unless modified by the stipulation of the parties. The bill would require a party making initial disclosures of persons or records to additionally disclose persons or records that are relevant to the subject matter of the action, except as specified, and to disclose information and records regarding insurance policies or contracts that would make a person or insurance company liable to satisfy a judgment. The bill would allow a party who has made, or responded to, a demand for initial disclosures to propound supplemental demands, as specified. The bill would instead require initial disclosures to be verified via the written declaration of the party or the party’s authorized representative or signed by the party’s counsel. The bill would exempt any party not represented by counsel from these requirements. In addition to the exemptions described above, the bill would specify that its provisions do not apply to actions or proceedings commenced in whole or in part under the Family Code or Probate Code, or to an action in which a party has been granted preference, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2027.
Existing law requires a court to impose a $250 sanction against a party, person, or attorney upon findings that the party, person, or attorney (1) failed to respond in good faith to a document request, (2) produced the requested documents within 7 days of a motion to compel that is filed by the requesting party as a result of the other party, person, or attorney’s failure to respond in good faith, or (3) failed to meet and confer in person, by telephone, by letter, or other means of communication in writing, to resolve any dispute regarding the request.
This bill would increase the amount of the sanction to $1,000.
AB 1650 – Family Law Proceedings: Custody, Parentage, and Adoption. (1) Under existing law, a superior court has jurisdiction under California law to make judicial determinations regarding the custody and care of children within the meaning of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. Existing law requires the court to make specified findings when making an order regarding special immigrant juvenile status pursuant to the act. Existing law authorizes those findings to be made at any point in a proceeding, as specified.
This bill, as of January 1, 2025, would, among other things, revise those provisions to allow the superior court jurisdiction regarding dependency and allow judicial determinations to be made for a child up to 21 years of age.
(2) Existing law, the Uniform Parentage Act, defines the parent and child relationship as the legal relationship existing between a child and the child’s parents, and provides rebuttable presumptions as to the parentage of a child born under the circumstances of conception through assisted reproduction using donated ova, sperm, or both. The act defines “assisted reproduction” for these purposes to mean conception by any means other than sexual intercourse.
This bill would authorize persons who are not married to one another and who share legal control over the disposition of embryos created through assisted reproduction to enter into a written agreement whereby one person renounces all legal interest in the embryos, with the specific intent to not be a legal parent of any child conceived with use of the embryos, as specified. The bill would provide that upon execution of the agreement, the person who retains legal interest in and control over disposition of the embryos would have the sole right to determine the use and disposition of the embryos, and the renouncing person would be treated in law as a donor, and not a legal parent. The bill would authorize either party to file the agreement with the court, and would require the court to issue an order establishing the nonparentage of the donor.
(3) Existing law allows, in an adoption proceeding, for continuing contact between the birth relatives and a child if a postadoption contact agreement is entered into voluntarily and is in the best interests of the child at the time the adoption petition is granted. Existing law requires a petitioner who has entered into a postadoption contact agreement with the birth parent to attach the signed agreement to the adoption petition.
This bill would require petitioners for adoption to inform the court in writing, on a specified form, whether a postadoption contact agreement has been, or will be, entered into and if a postadoption contact agreement has been entered into, to provide a file-marked copy, as specified. This bill would additionally require the petitioner to file the agreement with the court before the adoption is finalized. The bill also would apply those provisions with respect to independent adoptions.
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 8616.5 of the Family Code proposed by AB 20 to be operative only if this bill and AB 20 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
AB 12 – Landlord/Tenant Law: Tenancy Security Deposits. Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies, and prohibits a landlord from demanding or receiving security for a rental agreement for residential property, however denominated, in an amount or value in excess of an amount equal to 2 months’ rent, in the case of unfurnished residential property, and an amount equal to 3 months’ rent, in the case of furnished residential property, in addition to any rent for the first month paid on or before initial occupancy.
This bill would, beginning July 1, 2024, instead prohibit a landlord from demanding or receiving security for a rental agreement for residential property in an amount or value in excess of an amount equal to one month’s rent, regardless of whether the residential property is unfurnished or furnished, in addition to any rent for the first month paid on or before initial occupancy. The bill, unless the prospective tenant is a service member, as defined, would prohibit a landlord from demanding or receiving security for a rental agreement for residential property in an amount or value in excess of 2 months’ rent, in addition to any rent for the first month, if the landlord (1) is a natural person or a limited liability corporation in which all members are natural persons and (2) owns no more than 2 residential rental properties that collectively include no more than 4 dwelling units offered for rent.
SB 71 – Jurisdiction: Small Claims and Limited Civil Case. Existing law provides that the small claims court has jurisdiction over actions seeking certain forms of relief, including money damages in specified amounts and claims brought by natural persons, not exceeding $10,000, except as specified. Existing law requires an action or special proceeding to be treated as a limited civil case if certain conditions exist, including, among others, that the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000.
This bill would increase the small claims court jurisdiction over actions brought by a natural person, if the amount does not exceed $12,500, except as specified, and would also increase the amount in controversy permitted in other specified actions within the jurisdiction of the small claims court. The bill would increase the limit on the amount in controversy for an action or special proceeding to be treated as a limited civil case to $35,000. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions and make conforming changes.
SB 459 – Domestic Violence: Restraining Orders. Existing law allows a civil court, after notice and a hearing, to issue an order to enjoin a person from, among other things, attacking, stalking, or threatening another person. Under existing law, the protective order may be valid for up to 5 years, as determined by the court, and may be renewed for 5 or more years, or permanently, at the discretion of the court.
This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2025, to create one or more specific forms for the purpose of requesting a modification of an existing restraining order.
SB 439 – Special Motions to Strike. Existing law permits any party to file a notice of motion and motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. Under existing law, a party may file with the trial court a special motion to strike a cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.
This bill would permit a party to file with the trial court a special motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading in all civil actions brought by any plaintiff to challenge the approval or permitting of a priority housing development project, as defined. The bill would require the trial court to deny the motion to strike if it determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. The bill would entitle a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike to recover their attorney’s fees and costs, except as specified. Except as specified, the bill would require the filing of a special motion to strike within 60 days of the service of the complaint, or in the court’s discretion, at any later time the court deems proper. The bill would provide that if the court determines the administrative record is required for its decision, the moving party may, notwithstanding the filing deadlines above, file the special motion to strike within 60 days of the service of the administrative record or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time the court deems proper. The bill would require the court to make its determination on the special motion to strike on the pleadings, supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based, and if applicable, the administrative record. The bill would provide that an order granting or denying this special motion to strike is appealable, as specified.
SB 69 – California Environmental Quality Act. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires, among other things, a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect.
CEQA requires a local agency that approves or determines to carry out a project subject to CEQA to file a notice of determination with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located, as provided. CEQA authorizes a local agency that determines that a project is not subject to CEQA to file a notice of exemption with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located, as provided. CEQA requires the county clerk to make the notice available for public inspection and post the notice within 24 hours of receipt in the office or on the internet website of the county clerk, as specified.
CEQA requires an action or proceeding challenging an act or decision of a public agency, including a local agency, on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA to be commenced within certain time periods, as specified.
This bill would require a local agency to file a notice of determination with the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research in addition to the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The bill would authorize a local agency to file a notice of exemption with the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research in addition to the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The bill would require the notice, including any subsequent or amended notice, to be posted both in the office and on the internet website of the county clerk and by the Office of Planning and Research on the State Clearinghouse internet website within 24 hours of receipt. The bill would specify that the posting of the notice by the Office of Planning and Research would not affect the applicable time periods to challenge an act or decision of a local agency, as described above. By imposing duties on local agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Categorized in: Legal Procedure
| << previous | next >> |