(1) Existing law requires a natural person who, for specific compensation, makes more than 10 services of process within the state in one calendar year, or a corporation or partnership that derives compensation from service of process within the state, to file and maintain a verified certificate of registration as a process server with the county clerk of the county in which the person, corporation, or partnership resides or has its principal place of business, except as specified. Existing law requires each county clerk to maintain a register of process servers and assign a number and issue an identification card to each process server. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require that the register of process servers maintained by a county clerk be publicly available. By imposing a new duty on county clerks, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law provides that a service of a summons in a civil action that complies with specified procedures is not invalid or ineffective solely because it was made by a person in violation of the requirements pertaining to registered process servers. Existing law provides that if a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, the summons may be served by leaving a copy at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address, in the presence of a person who is at least 18 years of age, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint as specified. Existing law also authorizes a summons in an action for unlawful detainer to be served by posting if the court is satisfied that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in any authorized manner other than publication, and that other specified conditions are met. Existing law requires the proof of service of a summons to contain specified information and documentation. This bill would define "reasonable diligence," for purposes of service of process in specified civil cases, to mean attempting personal delivery of the summons and complaint, in good faith, on at least three occasions on three different days at three different times. The bill would require the proof of service of a summons and complaint, if served personally, by substituted service, or by posting, if the summons is for an action for unlawful detainer of real property, to include at least one photograph, if such can be obtained without compromising the safety of the process server, of the site of the effectuated or attempted service and contain a readable stamp and global positioning system (GPS) coordinates indicating the date, time, and location of service. The bill would require the process server to provide a detailed statement on the proof of service, as specified, if there is no GPS or cellular signal available at the time and place of the effected or attempted service. The bill would make these requirements operative on January 1, 2027. (3) Existing law authorizes a court, on motion of a party and after notice to the other party, to set aside any void judgment or order. This bill would authorize a party that did not receive proper service of the summons and complaint to bring a motion to set aside or vacate a default or default judgment or for leave to defend the action or to move for dismissal. The bill would require a party that files a motion to set aside or vacate a default or default judgment to proffer evidence that service of the summons and complaint was not effected. The bill would provide that the party seeking the default or default judgment has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was lawful. The bill would require the court to take evidence and would require the court to conduct a hearing and receive oral testimony if requested by either party. The bill would specify that the above provisions would not limit any other available remedies under the law. The bill would make these provisions operative on January 1, 2027. (4) Existing law prescribes requirements for civil actions for unlawful detainer filed by landlords to remove tenants from their properties. Existing law requires that certain information be included in the complaint for unlawful detainer, including the method used to serve the defendant with the notice of termination of tenancy. This bill would additionally require the complaint to include information describing the date, time, and location of effected service of the termination notice. The bill would make this requirement operative on January 1, 2027. (5) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Uniform Civil Fees and Standard Fee Schedule Act of 2005, establishes a set fee schedule for courts to implement for, among other things, filings, service, and changes of venue. Existing law authorizes the court to charge a reasonable fee that does not exceed the costs of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee, as specified. The bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee that exceeds the cost to the court of providing the service or product. The bill would require any fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule to be approved by the Judicial Council. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by December 1, 2027, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each fee charged by a superior court in the 2026–27 fiscal year for which the revenue collected by and distributed to the court as a result of the fee exceeds the court's cost of providing the service or product. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by December 1, 2028, and December 1, 2029, to report certain data to the Legislature, as specified, regarding the 2027–28 and 2028–29 fiscal years, respectively. Existing law authorizes trial court records to be created, maintained, and preserved in any form of communication or representation, including paper, optical, electronic, magnetic, micrographic, or photographic media or other technology. Existing law requires those court records be made reasonably accessible to the public for viewing and duplication, with a reasonable provision controlling for the costs of duplication, as specified. This bill would require court records maintained in electronic form to be viewable at the court and be available for duplication at a cost, as specified. The bill would allow a member of the public to request to view or duplicate accessible records, on the premises of the court and with the requester's equipment in a manner that does not make physical contact with the record, without being charged any fees or costs to reproduce the record, unless reproduction would result in, among other things, damage to the record or unauthorized access to the court's computer systems or networks, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to impose reasonable limits on the use of the requester's equipment that are necessary to protect the safety of the records or prevent the copying of the records from being an unreasonable burden, as specified.
Existing law, the Reproductive Privacy Act, prohibits a person from being subject to civil or criminal liability, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome or based solely on their actions to aid or assist a woman or pregnant person who is exercising their reproductive rights as specified in the act. Existing law authorizes a party whose rights are protected by the Reproductive Privacy Act to bring a civil action against an offending state actor when those rights are interfered with by conduct or by statute, ordinance, or other state or local rule, regulation, or enactment in violation of the act, as specified, and require a court, upon a motion, to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, if it appears to them that a person has engaged, or is about to engage, in any act or practice constituting a violation of the Reproductive Privacy Act, to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California in the superior court to enjoin the acts or practices or to enforce compliance with the act, as specified. In this context, the bill would authorize the Attorney General to make public or private investigations, publish information concerning violation of the Reproductive Privacy Act, and subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of documents or records that they deem relevant or material to the inquiry. This bill would impose a civil penalty not exceeding $25,000 upon any person or governmental entity that violates any provision of the act and a civil penalty for violation of the bill's provisions, to be determined as specified. The bill would require any costs, fees, and civil penalties collected pursuant to these provisions to be available to the office of the Attorney General upon appropriation of the Legislature for exclusive use by the Attorney General for enforcement of act. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, generally requires that all claims for money or damages against local public entities be presented in accordance with specified law, and excepts certain claims from this requirement. This bill would additionally except claims brought under the Reproductive Privacy Act from those requirements under the Government Claims Act.
Existing law requires, until January 1, 2026, a person who has been convicted on or after January 1, 2019, of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, as specified, to install for a period of time, as ordered by the court, an ignition interlock device (IID) on the vehicle they operate. Installation of an IID is discretionary for a first offender, as specified. Existing law also requires persons convicted of driving under the influence of a drug to install an IID. Existing law specifies periods for which a person convicted of one or more prior driving-under-the-influence violations is required to install an IID, as specified. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime punishable as an infraction, unless otherwise specified. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish, until January 1, 2033, a pilot program in the Counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern that would impose a similar requirement for persons convicted of specified driving offenses relating to excessive speed, reckless driving, and exhibitions of speed to install for a period of time, as ordered by the court, a certified active intelligent speed assist device (ISA) on any vehicle the person operates. The bill would similarly make the installation of an ISA discretionary for a first offender, as specified. The bill would establish periods for which a person convicted of one or more prior specified driving offenses is required to install an ISA, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to create a verification installation form to be submitted by persons subject to these provisions. The bill would impose a fee schedule to be adopted by certified ISA manufacturers and their agents for the ISA and other related costs. By creating new crimes related to the installation and maintenance of an ISA, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require, by July 1, 2030, the department to report data to the Transportation Agency regarding the implementation and efficacy of the pilot program, as specified, and require the Transportation Agency to report to the Legislature on the outcomes of the pilot program by July 1, 2031. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern. 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.
(1) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to sponsor a pilot program for 2 fiscal years to study whether increases in juror compensation and mileage reimbursement rates increase juror diversity and participation. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to provide a report to the Legislature describing the findings of the pilot program and providing information for promoting juror diversity by September 1, 2026. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2027. This bill would repeal these provisions. (2) Existing law requires the Administrative Office of the Courts, an obsolete entity, to perform specified functions. Under existing law, any reference to the Administrative Office of the Courts means the Judicial Council. This bill would revise references to the Administrative Office of the Courts to the Judicial Council. (3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to annually report to the Department of Finance, the Legislature, and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the total amount of revenue collected in the prior fiscal year, by each court and county, from criminal fines, fees, forfeitures, penalties, restitution fines, and assessments related to infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies, as specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council to annually, on or before February 1, provide a report to the Legislature on the operations of each trial court that includes specified operational and budgetary metrics for the prior fiscal year, including, among others, backlogs and staff vacancies. (4) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to report all approved allocations and reimbursements to trial courts in each fiscal year, as specified, on or before September 30 following the close of each fiscal year. This bill would instead require the report to be submitted on or before February 1 each year. (5) Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council to sell specific courthouses at fair market value and upon the terms and conditions the Judicial Council deems in the best interests of the state. This bill would authorize the Judicial Council to sell additional specified courthouses. (6) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to collect and maintain statistics, and to publish them at least on a yearly basis, about the compliance of the superior court of each county and each branch court with the standards of timely disposition, as specified. Existing law requires, on or before November 1, 2007, the Judicial Council to adopt, and report to the Legislature annually thereafter, judicial administration standards and measures that promote the fair and efficient administration of justice, as specified. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to present an annual report to the Legislature on the use of the State Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund, with appropriate recommendations. This bill would delete these requirements for the Judicial Council and make a conforming change. (7) This bill would appropriate $4,690,000 from the General Fund to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund to provide a one-time backfill. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
(1) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to sponsor a pilot program for 2 fiscal years to study whether increases in juror compensation and mileage reimbursement rates increase juror diversity and participation. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to provide a report to the Legislature describing the findings of the pilot program and providing information for promoting juror diversity by September 1, 2026. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2027. This bill would repeal these provisions. (2) Existing law requires the Administrative Office of the Courts, an obsolete entity, to perform specified functions. Under existing law, any reference to the Administrative Office of the Courts means the Judicial Council. This bill would revise references to the Administrative Office of the Courts to the Judicial Council. (3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to annually report to the Department of Finance, the Legislature, and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the total amount of revenue collected in the prior fiscal year, by each court and county, from criminal fines, fees, forfeitures, penalties, restitution fines, and assessments related to infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies, as specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council to annually, on or before February 1, provide a report to the Legislature on the operations of each trial court that includes specified operational and budgetary metrics for the prior fiscal year, including, among others, backlogs and staff vacancies. (4) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to report all approved allocations and reimbursements to trial courts in each fiscal year, as specified, on or before September 30 following the close of each fiscal year. This bill would instead require the report to be submitted on or before February 1 each year. (5) Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council to sell specific courthouses at fair market value and upon the terms and conditions the Judicial Council deems in the best interests of the state. This bill would authorize the Judicial Council to sell additional specified courthouses. (6) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to collect and maintain statistics, and to publish them at least on a yearly basis, about the compliance of the superior court of each county and each branch court with the standards of timely disposition, as specified. Existing law requires, on or before November 1, 2007, the Judicial Council to adopt, and report to the Legislature annually thereafter, judicial administration standards and measures that promote the fair and efficient administration of justice, as specified. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to present an annual report to the Legislature on the use of the State Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund, with appropriate recommendations. This bill would delete these requirements for the Judicial Council and make a conforming change. (7) This bill would appropriate $4,690,000 from the General Fund to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund to provide a one-time backfill. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Existing law authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law provides that a defendant is eligible for diversion if they have been diagnosed with certain mental disorders and the court finds that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to the defendant's involvement in the alleged offense. Existing law prohibits defendants charged with specified offenses, including murder, from being placed in this diversion program. This bill would require that the diagnosis or rediagnosis with a mental disorder be within 5 years before the alleged offense. Existing law makes a defendant suitable for this diversion program if, among other criteria, a qualified mental health expert opines that the defendant's symptoms of the mental disorder that caused, contributed to, or motivated the criminal behavior, would respond to mental health treatment and the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community, as specified. The bill would revise that standard and instead require the court to find that the defendant will not pose a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person if treated in the community. The bill would require the mental health expert's opinion to include that the proposed mental health diversion plan is clinically appropriate to address the symptoms of the defendant's mental disorder, as specified. The bill would require the court to state the reasons for denial on the record.
Existing law allows a defendant who successfully participated in the California Conservation Camp program as an incarcerated individual hand crew member, successfully participated as a member of a county incarcerated individual hand crew, or participated in an institutional firehouse program, except as specified, to petition the court to have the pleading dismissed, as described, thus releasing the person of any penalties and disabilities of conviction, except as otherwise provided. Existing law requires the court to provide a copy of the petition to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or the appropriate county authority. Under existing regulations of the Emergency Medical Services Authority, specified public safety personnel, including peace officers and firefighters, are required to have specified emergency medical services training, which may be satisfied by certification as an emergency medical technician. This bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or a county authority, upon the release of a defendant, to certify to the court in the county where the defendant was sentenced that the individual successfully participated in one of the above-described programs and to provide a copy of that certification to the defendant. The bill would delete the requirement that a court provide a copy of a defendant's petition to the department or a county authority. The bill would prohibit an individual who has had their criminal pleading dismissed under these provisions from being denied a certification as an emergency medical technician or any other license or certification required to work as a firefighter based solely on their arrest or conviction history, as described. By requiring additional reporting from county authorities, the 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law defines looting as the commission of certain offenses during and within an affected county in a state of emergency or local emergency, as specified. Existing law includes any 2nd-degree burglary or grand theft in the definition of looting, and makes looting based on those offenses punishable by either imprisonment in a county jail for one year or as a felony. This bill would authorize the court to consider the fact, if pled and proven, that the defendant committed the crime of looting while impersonating emergency personnel as a factor in aggravation. Existing law prohibits credibly impersonating a peace officer, firefighter, or employee of a state or local government agency, or a search and rescue team, as specified. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would make it a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, for a person, other than a first responder to wear, exhibit, or use the uniform, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or writing of a first responder with the intent of fraudulently impersonating a first responder within an area under an evacuation order, as specified. The bill would also make it a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, to impersonate a first responder on the internet or by electronic means during an evacuation order or within 30 days of its termination for the purpose of defrauding another, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2029, defines the offense of aggravated arson, and defines the aggravating factors for the offense as: the person has been previously convicted of arson on one or more occasions within the past 10 years, the fire caused property damage and other losses in excess of $10,100,000, or the fire caused damage to, or the destruction of, 5 or more inhabited dwellings. Existing law, commencing January 1, 2029, deletes the aggravating factor of property damage and other losses in excess of $10,100,000 from the definition of aggravated arson. This bill would state that it is the intent of the Legislature that amendments to the above-described dollar amounts are to be applied prospectively and shall not be interpreted to benefit any defendant who committed a crime or received a sentence before the effective date of the amendment. By creating a new crime and by increasing the punishment of specified crimes, 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. This bill would make the operation of its provisions contingent upon the enactment of AB 468 of the 2025–26 Regular Session.
(1) Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act) , authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of the person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator determines conservatorship is still required. This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as specified. (2) The act authorizes services and supports to be provided to adults who are currently experiencing a qualifying severe mental illness and who meet other specified criteria, including that the person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment and is either unlikely to survive safely in the community without ongoing supervision and the person's condition is substantially deteriorating or the person is in need of services and supports to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others. This bill would authorize the court, beginning July 1, 2028, and if it dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, to order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, by July 1, 2028, to develop, with input from certain stakeholder groups, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed because the individual needed a higher level of services. This bill would update the definition of a petitioner for the purposes of the act. (3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form or forms to use to file a CARE process petition. Existing law requires the petition to be signed under the penalty of perjury and to contain specified information, including the petitioner's relationship to the respondent and either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition, or that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments pursuant to state law. This bill would extend the 60-day period for examination of the respondent to 120 days. The bill would also authorize a petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of 2 involuntary holds in the last 120 days or that they were referred to a full service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days. (4) Existing law authorizes a court to terminate a respondent's participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondent's safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondent's failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provided that the hearing occurs within 6 months of the termination of the CARE plan, and creates a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan. This bill would prohibit the court from terminating a respondent's participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process. (5) Existing law requires CARE Act proceedings to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. Existing law authorizes the respondent to be in person for all hearings. This bill would instead authorize all parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remotely technology. The bill would authorize the court with discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary. This bill would authorize the parties to agree to an alternative method of service for all subsequent reports and notices after the notice of initial appearance. This bill would require, by January 1, 2028, all counties to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal. By increasing the duties on county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law authorizes a provider of health care or a covered entity, as defined, to disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agency's provision, coordination, or management or services or supports. Existing law specifies protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to disclose to a provider of health care or a covered entity any information, including protected health information, and mental health records, excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entity's provision, coordination, or management of services and supports. The bill would also specify protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. (7) Existing law requires the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, an annual CARE Act report that includes specified information on CARE Act petitions, including the number of initial appearances, and information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts. This bill would expand the information on CARE Act petitions to include the number of petitions submitted electronically as well as other specified information. The bill would also expand the data to be compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of individuals who were enrolled in a Full Service Partnership program postreferral, among other things. The bill would also require the data collected from county behavioral health departments and courts to be collected for cases involving dismissed respondents, where available. (8) Existing law requires the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, to perform specified functions, including engaging an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act. This bill would require the agency to annually release a list of overperforming counties and shall annually provide written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement to underperforming counties. This bill would also establish within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson, as specified. (9) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
