Court fees: electronic filing.
Summary
Existing law authorizes the electronic service of documents in accordance with uniform rules adopted by the Judicial Council, as specified. Upon Judicial Council adoption of the uniform rules, existing law authorizes a superior court, by local rule, to require mandatory electronic filing and service of documents for specified civil actions in accordance with certain requirements including a requirement that any fees charged by the court do not exceed the actual cost of electronic filing and service of documents. This bill would add the additional requirement that a fee to process a payment that is charged by the court, an electronic filing manager, or an electronic filing service provider, does not exceed the actual costs incurred for processing the payment. The bill would require waiver of fees to process a payment if the court deems waiver appropriate. Existing law authorizes a court, subject to Judicial Council approval, to accept a credit card, debit card, or electronic funds transfer in payment of designated obligations, including filing fees and other court costs. Existing law authorizes a court, subject to Judicial Council approval, to impose a fee for the use of a credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer, not to exceed the costs incurred by the court in providing for payment by credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer. This bill would additionally authorize an agent of the court to impose a fee, subject to Judicial Council approval, for the use of a credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer, not to exceed the costs incurred by the court in providing for payment by credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer. For purposes of this provision, the bill would deem an electronic filing service provider who is required to collect and remit a filing fee or other court fee to complete an electronic filing transaction to be an agent of the court solely for that purpose, except as otherwise specified. The bill would require an agent of the court to report its costs in providing for payment by credit or debit card, or electronic funds transfer, as specified, and would require the agent to provide the Judicial Council, or its authorized representative, with access to examine the records and documents of the agency for purposes of verifying report accuracy and compliance with certain requirements. The bill would prohibit an electronic filing service provider from collecting or attempting to collect a fee to complete an electronic filing transaction from a party who is exempt from paying fees but would still require the electronic filing service provider to complete the filing. The bill would require a court, or certain electronic file managers, to accept more than one method of payment from an electronic filing service provider, as specified. Existing law also enumerates costs that a prevailing party may recover in a civil action. This bill would authorize a prevailing party to recover fees for the electronic filing or service of documents, or fees for the hosting of electronic documents, charged by an electronic filing service provider, if the court orders or requires electronic filing, service, or hosting of documents.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2016
Committee Review
Aug 2016
Assembly Passage
May 2016
Senate Passage
Aug 2016
Signed into Law
Sep 2016
Introduced Feb 18, 2016
Signed Sep 22, 2016
Floor votes · Senate Aug 16, 2016 · Assembly Aug 23, 2016
How they voted
31–1
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 33
Aug 16, 2016
D
Democratic23
95% Yea
R
Republican10
90% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
26
Key actions
8
Committee
11
Amendments
3
Sep 22, 2016
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 23, 2016
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (71-0)
assembly
Aug 23, 2016
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 6113.).
lower
Aug 16, 2016
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (31-1-1)
senate
Aug 16, 2016
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 18 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 11, 2016
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 11).
upper
Aug 1, 2016
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jun 22, 2016
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 13, 2016
Committee
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 19, 2016
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 4, 2016
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 20. Noes 0.) (May 4).
lower
Apr 14, 2016
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 13, 2016
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 12, 2016
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 12).
lower
Apr 6, 2016
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 3, 2016
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 19, 2016
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Mike Gatto
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2244
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2244. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline