SB 738 California Senate · 2025-2026 Regular Session

The Reclaim Act.

Summary
Existing law permits a court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, to enter a prefiling order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Existing law permits a presiding judge or a presiding justice to allow a vexatious litigant's filing only under specified circumstances and permits the presiding judge to condition the filing upon the furnishing of security. Existing law defines a "vexatious litigant" for these purposes to include, among other things, a person who, after being restrained by a domestic violence restraining order, and while that order is still in place, commenced, prosecuted, or maintained one or more litigations against a person protected by the restraining order. Existing law authorizes a person protected by a restraining order issued after a hearing pursuant to the above-described provisions to file a petition, without fee, to have the person who is the subject of that order declared a vexatious litigant if, while the restraining order is still in place, they commence, prosecute, or maintain litigation against the person protected by the restraining order in an action that is determined to be meritless and caused the person protected by the order to be harassed or intimidated. Existing law establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and providing for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable those persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. Existing law authorizes a court to issue a protective order enjoining a party from engaging in specified acts, including threatening or harassing the other party or disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party refers to conduct that includes coercive control, which includes unreasonably engaging in, among other things, isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support. Existing law makes an intentional and knowing violation of a protective order punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to, among other things, promote the health and safety of domestic violence survivors and their children. Existing law recognizes that litigation abuse is the use of legal or bureaucratic procedures by abusive partners to continue to attack, harass, intimidate, coercively control, or maintain contact with a former partner through the legal system. Existing law limits and controls discovery in family law proceedings to the least intrusive methods, as specified. Existing law authorizes a court to issue, after notice and a hearing, orders enjoining a party from engaging in specified behavior, including contacting, attacking, or threatening another party, and excluding the party from a family dwelling. Existing law further provides that when determining whether to make those orders, the court must consider whether its failure to make any of those orders may jeopardize the safety of specified parties. This bill, the Reclaim Act, would remove the requirement that the domestic violence restraining order still be in place for purposes of a person being declared a vexatious litigant, and instead would apply when the restraining order is in effect, has expired, or has been modified or terminated. The bill would, rather than requiring a determination whether the prior litigation was meritless and caused the protected person to be harassed or intimidated, instead require the court to determine whether a prior litigation was determined to be frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the protected person. The bill would also expand the definition of a vexatious litigant to include a person who following a conviction, including a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere, of a crime that involves domestic violence, as defined, commenced, prosecuted, or maintained litigation against the victim that is determined to be frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the victim. This bill would authorize, in an action filed by the person convicted of the crimes against the victim of those crimes, the victim to file a petition, without fee, to have the person who was convicted of those crimes to be declared a vexatious litigant. This bill would prohibit a plaintiff in a civil action, who has been deemed to be a vexatious litigant on the basis of the above-described provisions and who is the subject of a restraining order protecting the defendant, from seeking information from the defendant in discovery that is protected by the restraining order without prior authorization from the court. The bill would allow the court to grant a motion for disclosure of information protected by the restraining order only upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff, as prescribed. The bill would authorize a defendant who receives a discovery request in violation of these provisions to disregard the request without filing a motion for a protective order and would prohibit the court from issuing sanctions against a defendant who disregarded such a request in good faith. This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from commencing litigation that is frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the other party. By expanding the scope of enjoined activities under a protective order, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize, if, on or after the date a protective order is issued, the respondent and the petitioner are engaged in a legal proceeding initiated by the respondent, the petitioner to request a court order preventing the respondent from seeking discovery, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to consider the scope of the protective order and whether the information sought, or the discovery method selected, appears intended to circumvent the protective order. This bill would also make a legislative finding recognizing that litigation abuse may emotionally or financially harm domestic violence survivors with unnecessary, irrelevant, or intrusive discovery. 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.
Bill status failed 1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 21, 2025 Last action Feb 2, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 4 comparisons

What changed between versions

04/10/25 - Amended Senate 05/01/25 - Amended Senate · 6 edits · May 1, 2025
MODERATE
The May 1 amendment to SB 738 (the Reclaim Act) makes several significant changes: it removes the rebuttable presumption that a domestic violence perpetrator is automatically a vexatious litigant in civil actions, removes the provision linking frivolous litigation to coercive control (which would have made it a criminal violation of protective orders), and adds a new amendment to Family Code Section 6340 that provides alternative service methods, requires written reasons for denying petitions, and authorizes courts to block discovery that circumvents protective orders. The bill's scope expands to cover Section 6340 of the Family Code.
SCOPE

The rebuttable presumption that a plaintiff who perpetrated domestic violence against the defendant is a vexatious litigant in any civil action has been entirely removed from the bill. This was one of the most aggressive provisions, as it would have shifted the burden to the abuser to prove their lawsuit had merit.

The bill now amends Family Code Section 6340, adding provisions for: alternative service methods when a respondent evades personal service (including publication and mail), a requirement that courts provide written reasons when denying a protective order petition, and authorization for courts to issue orders preventing a respondent from seeking discovery that circumvents the protective order.

ENFORCEMENT

The provision stating that coercive control includes unreasonably engaging in frivolous litigation (and that frivolous litigation includes any litigation by a vexatious litigant) has been removed. This provision would have made filing frivolous lawsuits a criminal violation of a protective order, imposing a state-mandated local program on courts.

DEFINITION

The standard for declaring someone a vexatious litigant based on prior litigation was changed from requiring the litigation be 'meritless and caused the person protected by the order to be harassed or intimidated' to requiring it be 'frivolous, abusive, or solely intended to maintain contact with the protected person.'

ELIGIBILITY

The conviction-based vexatious litigant provision was broadened from covering only specific Penal Code violations (Section 273.5 and Section 243(e)) to covering any crime, misdemeanor, or infraction that involves domestic violence as defined in Family Code Section 6321.

REQUIREMENT

The ex parte protective order provision (Section 6320) was modified to more specifically enumerate that courts can enjoin 'commencing litigation that is frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the other party' as a distinct category of enjoined conduct.

Floor votes

How they voted

No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
17
Key actions
6
Committee
4
Amendments
4
May 23, 2025
Upper · Passed
May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
upper
May 1, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 30, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 942.) (April 29).
upper
Apr 18, 2025
Upper · Passed
April 22 hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Apr 10, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Apr 2, 2025
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Mar 26, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Mar 12, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 21, 2025
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Photo of Susan Rubio
Susan Rubio
DDemocratic
CA
22