Domestic violence: Reclaim Act.

Section 391.94(b)(2) was narrowed. For litigation, the standard changed from 'has filed or is pursuing frivolous or abusive litigation' to simply 'has filed frivolous or abusive litigation,' removing coverage of ongoing pursuit. For discovery, the standard changed from 'has conducted, attempted to conduct, violence or is conducting frivolous or abusive discovery' to simply 'is conducting frivolous or abusive discovery,' removing past-tense and attempted-conduct language.

The legislative counsel's digest was corrected to remove a duplicated word ('victims a victim' changed to 'a victim'). All other changes are formatting: removal of line-number annotations, updated page headers/footers, and addition of enrolled-bill signature blocks (Senate passage August 20, Assembly passage August 19, Governor receipt block).

A victim of domestic violence can now only seek a prefiling order if they are 'a party to the action' in which the motion is filed. Previously, any victim could file in any pending litigation regardless of whether they were a party to it.

New provisions (Section 391.94(f), (g), and (h)) create a process for an enjoined party to apply to have a prefiling order vacated and their name removed from the Judicial Council's list. The standard is a material change in facts plus that the ends of justice would be served. A denied applicant must wait 18 months before reapplying.

The provision allowing a court to deny a permission request on an ex parte basis (former Section 391.94(d)(5)) has been deleted, meaning all denials now require a noticed hearing.

The standalone operative section (former Section 391.92) that established victim rights in court as enforceable provisions has been eliminated. Two specific protections are lost: the right to be informed of available rights and remedies, and a savings clause stating that granting these rights does not deny other rights victims possess. The remaining rights language survives only in the findings and declarations section (Section 391.90), which is generally considered non-operative.

The requirement that court findings upon granting a prefiling order 'shall be in writing or on the record' (former Section 391.94(e)(2)) has been removed, though a similar written-findings requirement remains for permission requests under subdivision (d).

In Section 391.94(b)(2), the word 'violence' appears to have been inserted in error: 'conducted, attempted to conduct, violence or is conducting frivolous or abusive discovery.' This is likely a drafting error that will need correction.

Removed the option for a person to qualify as a 'victim of domestic violence' by presenting an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury by a domestic violence counselor. Victims must now be found by a court or protected by a restraining order.

Removed the provision stating that Marsy's Law (Section 28 of Article I of the California Constitution) rights apply to civil, family, or small claims proceedings involving domestic violence victims.

Added that the presiding judge may designate another judge to act on their behalf when an enjoined party seeks permission to file a new case under the prefiling order.

Added that Judicial Council forms must include notification to a victim of domestic violence and the restrained party of their rights and obligations under the title upon issuance of a domestic violence restraining order.

Removed the explicit statement that the bill abrogates the decision in Slaieh v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 266.

Replaced the term 'abuser' with 'perpetrator' throughout the bill for consistency with the defined term in section 391.91(f).

Removed the right of victims to 'have the safety of the victim, the victim's family, and the general public considered before any court decision is made' from the enumerated rights in section 391.92(a).

Narrowed the remedies available when an enjoined party files litigation or discovery without court permission. Removed 'lost wages and other reasonable expenses needed to respond, to prepare to respond, and to stay safe,' leaving only sanctions and attorney's fees and costs.

Added a deadline requiring the Judicial Council to promulgate and modify court forms and rules of court on or before January 1, 2028. Previously no deadline was specified.

Added three new factors courts must consider when deciding whether to permit discovery in domestic violence restraining order proceedings: potential for inducing trauma, whether persons are subject to restraining or protective orders, and any other factor affecting prompt and fair resolution (Family Code section 6309(d)(4)-(6)).

The bill now explicitly includes small claims courts alongside civil and family courts throughout, broadening where victims can seek prefiling order protection.

A provision specifically addressing litigation filed by a perpetrator who was represented by counsel and then became in propria persona after attorney withdrawal has been removed.

A new timing restriction limits prefiling motions to those filed 'in any litigation pending in any court of this state, until a final judgment is entered,' clarifying that the motion must be made during active litigation.

The litigation and any pending discovery requests are now automatically stayed during the pendency of a prefiling order motion, giving victims breathing room while the court considers the request.

A new detailed permission process is created for enjoined parties: for new cases they must get permission from the presiding judge of the proposed court; for pending matters they must file a noticed motion. The court may deny requests on an ex parte basis and must make findings in writing or on the record.

The earlier version's requirement that a court order an enjoined party to post security when there is no reasonable probability of prevailing in litigation has been removed.

The standard for granting a prefiling order is restructured into two explicit findings: (1) the party against whom the order is sought must be a perpetrator of domestic violence, and (2) that perpetrator must have filed or be pursuing frivolous or abusive litigation or discovery. The earlier version required only a single finding about frivolous or abusive conduct.

Upon granting a prefiling order, the court is now required to review any pending litigation filed by the enjoined party and dismiss it if it does not meet all criteria (not abusive, not frivolous, has merit, not for harassment or delay). The court must also review pending discovery requests and order withdrawal of those that fail the test.

The sanctions provision is simplified. The earlier version required the court to grant 'sanctions, attorney fees and costs needed to respond or prepare to respond, and any lost wages and other reasonable expenses needed to respond, to prepare to respond, and to stay safe.' The new version shortens this to 'sanctions and attorney's fees and costs.'

The Judicial Council's record-keeping duty is expanded to include tracking not only enjoined parties but also the persons against whom they are enjoined from commencing litigation without permission.

The definition of 'domestic violence' is expanded to explicitly reference the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Division 10 of the Family Code) by name, and 'abusive litigation' is now defined as 'described in' rather than 'defined in' Section 6309.

Expanded applicability from 'civil or family law' courts and cases to include small claims courts throughout the bill (Sections 391.92(a), 391.92(c), 391.94(b), and 391.94(g)).

Broadened the trigger for a prefiling order in Section 391.94(a) to include perpetrators who have 'attempted to file' or 'are pursuing' frivolous or abusive litigation, and who 'are conducting' (not just have conducted or attempted) frivolous or abusive discovery.

Raised the standard for permitting an enjoined party to file litigation or conduct discovery: the court must now find 'in writing or on the record, by a preponderance of the evidence' that the litigation or discovery is not abusive, not frivolous, has merit, and was not filed for harassment or delay (previously only required that it 'appears' the litigation has merit).

Added authority for the court to later dismiss litigation or quash discovery if it subsequently finds the permitted litigation or discovery is frivolous or abusive.

Restructured the stay provisions (now Section 391.94(d)) to add an automatic stay while a prefiling request is pending, require written or on-the-record findings by a preponderance of the evidence, and mandate a minimum 10-day response period for the victim if the court allows the litigation or discovery to proceed.

Changed Section 391.94(f) from requiring a noticed hearing ('At the hearing on the motion') to making it discretionary ('If the court holds a hearing on the motion'), giving courts more flexibility in how they handle requests for permission to file.

Changed the definition of 'abusive litigation' in Section 391.91(b) from 'as defined in' to 'described in' subparagraph (C) of Section 6309(a)(1), a minor clarification that the referenced provision describes rather than formally defines the term.