Asm. Buffy Wicks

(1) Existing law establishes the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, known as "GO-Biz," within the Governor's office to serve the Governor as the lead entity for economic strategy and the marketing of California on issues relating to business development, private sector investment, and economic growth. This bill would require the office to coordinate with other relevant state and local agencies and national organizations to explore ways to facilitate streamlining of local land use approvals and construction permit processes for projects related to broadband infrastructure deployment and connectivity. (2) Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. Existing law requires the commission to develop, implement, and administer the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to encourage deployment of high-quality advanced communications services to all Californians that will promote economic growth, job creation, and the substantial social benefits of advanced information and communications technologies. Existing law establishes 5 accounts, the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account, the Rural and Urban Regional Broadband Consortia Grant Account, the Broadband Public Housing Account, the Broadband Adoption Account, and the Federal Funding Account, within the CASF. Existing law provides that the goal of the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account is, by no later than December 31, 2026, to approve funding for infrastructure projects that will provide broadband access to no less than 98% of California households. Upon the accomplishment of that goal, existing law makes up to $30,000,000 remaining in the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account available for infrastructure projects that provide last-mile broadband access to households to which no facility-based broadband provider offers broadband service at speeds of at least 10 megabits per second (mbps) downstream and one mbps upstream. Existing law authorizes the commission to impose a surcharge to collect $330,000,000 for deposit into the CASF beginning January 1, 2018, and continuing through the 2022 calendar year. Existing law specifies the amount of surcharge revenues to be deposited into each account within the CASF, subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Existing law authorizes the commission, in administering Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account, to require each infrastructure grant applicant to indicate steps taken to first obtain any available funding from the Connect America Fund program or similar federal public programs that fund broadband infrastructure. This bill would provide that the goal of the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account is to approve funding for infrastructure projects that will provide broadband access to no less than 98% of California households by no later than December 31, 2032, rather than December 31, 2026. The bill would delete the provision making up to $30,000,000 available for infrastructure projects upon the accomplishment of that goal, as specified. The bill would authorize moneys appropriated from the CASF to be used to fund projects that deploy broadband infrastructure to unserved nonresidential facilities used for local and state emergency response activities, including fairgrounds. The bill would delete the commission's authorization to collect $330,000,000 for deposit into the CASF beginning January 1, 2018, and continuing through the 2022 calendar year. The bill would authorize the commission, through imposition of a surcharge, to collect up to $150,000,000 per year. The bill would delete the commission's authorization to require each infrastructure grant applicant to indicate steps taken to first obtain any available funding from federal public programs, as specified. (3) Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because certain of the above provisions would be part of the act and a violation of a commission action implementing this bill's requirements would be a crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (4) This bill would become effective only if AB 14 of the 2021–22 Regular Session is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2022. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law establishes the State Department of Social Services in the Health and Welfare Agency and sets forth its powers and duties relating to the administration of various programs relating to public social services. This bill would enact the Community Response Initiative to Strengthen Emergency Systems Act, or the C.R.I.S.E.S. Act, for purposes of creating, implementing, and evaluating the C.R.I.S.E.S. Grant Pilot Program, which the act would establish. The bill would require the department to administer the program if appropriate funding is made available to the department. The bill would require the department to award grants to qualified grantees, which include city, county, and tribal departments of social services, disability services, health services, public health, or behavioral health, based on grant eligibility criteria developed in partnership with a stakeholder workgroup. This bill would require each grantee to receive a minimum award of $250,000 per year under the program. The bill would require a grantee to award at least 90% of grant funds received to one or more qualifying community-based organizations, as defined. The bill would require funds awarded under the program to be utilized to create and strengthen community-based alternatives to law enforcement to lessen the reliance on law enforcement agencies as first responders to crisis situations unrelated to a fire department or emergency medical service response. This bill would require a grantee to report at least annually to the department on the use of funding awarded under the program. The bill would require the department to convene a stakeholder workgroup consisting of specified individuals to make recommendations to the department regarding the implementation of the program, as specified. This bill would establish the Community Response Initiative to Strengthen Emergency Systems Program Fund within the State Treasury, and would provide that, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the moneys may be expended by the department for purposes of the program. The bill would prohibit the department from expending more than 5% of appropriated funds on administrative costs, as specified. The bill would require the department to award all grants by January 1, 2023. This bill would authorize the department to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions of the program without taking regulatory action, as specified. The bill would grant immunity to the state from liability resulting from the activities of a grantee or community-based organization under the program. This bill would repeal these provisions on June 30, 2026.

(1) Existing law establishes various default speed limits for vehicles upon highways, as specified. Existing law authorizes state and local authorities to adjust these default speed limits, as specified, based upon certain findings determined by an engineering and traffic survey. Existing law defines an engineering and traffic survey and prescribes specified factors that must be included in the survey, including prevailing speeds and road conditions. Existing law authorizes local authorities to consider additional factors, including pedestrian and bicyclist safety. This bill would authorize local authorities to consider the safety of vulnerable pedestrian groups, as specified. (2) Existing law establishes a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour on any highway, other than a state highway, located in any business or residence district, as defined. Existing law authorizes a local authority to change the speed limit on any such highway, as prescribed, including erecting signs to give notice thereof. This bill would establish a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour on state highways located in any business or residence district and would authorize the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to change the speed limit on any such highway, as prescribed, including erecting signs to give notice thereof. (3) Existing law establishes a speed limit of 65 miles per hour on state highways, as specified. Existing law authorizes Caltrans to declare a speed limit on any such highway, as prescribed, of 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, or 25 miles per hour, including erecting signs to give notice thereof. Existing law also authorizes a local authority, on a section of highway, other than a state highway, where the speed limit is 65 miles per hour to declare a lower speed limit, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize Caltrans and a local authority to declare a speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, as specified, on these highways. (4) Existing law authorizes a local authority, without an engineering and traffic survey, to declare a lowered speed limit on portions of highway, as specified, approaching a school building or school grounds. Existing law limits this authority to sections of highway meeting specified requirements relating to the number of lanes and the speed limit of the highway before the school zone. This bill would similarly authorize a lowered speed limit on a section of highway contiguous to a business activity district, as defined, and would require that certain violations be subject to a warning citation, for the first 30 days of implementation. (5) Existing law requires Caltrans, by regulation, to provide for the rounding up or down to the nearest 5 miles per hour increment of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic on a portion of highway as determined by a traffic and engineering survey. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to create and implement an online tool by June 30, 2024, for the adjudication of traffic infractions, among other things. This bill would authorize a local authority to further reduce the speed limit, as specified, and require that certain violations be subject to a warning citation, for the first 30 days of implementation. The bill would, in some circumstances, authorize the reduction of a speed limit beginning June 30, 2024, or when the Judicial Council has developed an online tool for adjudicating traffic infraction violations, whichever is sooner. The bill would require Caltrans to accordingly revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as specified. (6) Existing law defines a speed trap and prohibits evidence of a driver's speed obtained through a speed trap from being admissible in court in any prosecution against a driver for a speed-related offense. Existing law deems a road where the speed limit is not justified by a traffic and engineering survey conducted within the previous 7 years to be a speed trap, unless the roadway has been evaluated by a registered engineer, as specified, in which case the speed limit remains enforceable for a period of 10 years. Existing law exempts a school zone, as defined, from certain provisions relating to defining a speed trap. This bill would extend the period that a speed limit justified by a traffic and engineering survey conducted more the 7 years ago remains valid, for purposes of speed enforcement, if evaluated by a registered engineer, as specified, to 14 years. This bill would also exempt a senior zone and business activity district, as defined, from those provisions.

Under existing law, classified employees of school districts and community college districts subject to layoff as a result of the expiration of a specially funded program at the end of a school year are required to be given written notice on or before April 29 informing them of certain rights. Existing law also requires that notice be given not less than 60 days before the effective layoff date if the termination date of a specially funded program is other than June 30, or if classified employees are subject to layoff as a result of a bona fide reduction or elimination of a service performed by a department. This bill instead would revise and recast provisions relating to the layoff of classified employees of school districts and community college districts to require certain notices and opportunities for a hearing when a permanent classified employee's services will not be required for the ensuing year due to lack of work or lack of funds. The bill would, for the purposes of specified notice and hearing rights, define "permanent classified employee" to include both an employee who was permanent at the time the notice or right to a hearing was required and an employee who became permanent after the date of the required notice. The bill would express the intent of the Legislature in enacting the bill to provide permanent classified school employees and those who become permanent classified school employees with the same rights to notice and hearing with respect to layoffs as are provided to certificated employees of school districts, including teachers and administrators, and academic employees of community college districts. If classified positions must be eliminated as a result of the expiration of a specially funded program, the bill would require written notice of the layoff date and certain rights be given to the classified employees not less than 60 days before the effective layoff date. If, after January 1, 2021, the Legislature provides certificated or academic employees with any additional rights to notice or hearing as to layoffs, the bill would require the respective permanent classified employees, as described, to be afforded the same rights by the school district or community college district, as applicable. To the extent school districts and community college districts are required to perform additional duties, 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.

(1) Existing law allows a person who was arrested or convicted of a nonviolent offense while they were a victim of human trafficking to petition the court, under penalty of perjury, for vacatur relief. Existing law requires, to receive that relief, that the person establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the arrest or conviction was the direct result of being a victim of human trafficking. This bill would create similar relief for a person who was arrested or convicted of an offense that was the direct result of being a victim of intimate partner violence or sexual violence. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law creates an affirmative defense against a charge of a crime that the person was coerced to commit the offense as a direct result of being a human trafficking victim at the time of the offense and when the person had reasonable fear of harm. Existing law prohibits this defense from being used with respect to a serious or violent felony, as defined, or a charge of human trafficking. This bill would allow that defense to be used with respect to a serious felony or a charge of human trafficking. The bill would additionally create a defense against a charge of a crime that the person was coerced to commit the offense as a direct result of being a victim of intimate partner violence or sexual violence at the time of the offense and had a reasonable fear of harm. (2) Existing law specifies the pleas that may be made to an indictment, information, or complaint charging a misdemeanor or infraction, including the pleas of guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere. Existing law defines "plea bargaining" as any bargaining, negotiation, or discussion between a criminal defendant, or their counsel, and a prosecuting attorney or judge, whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty or nolo contendere, in exchange for any promises, commitments, concessions, assurances, or consideration by the prosecuting attorney or judge relating to any charge against the defendant or to the sentencing of the defendant. This bill would require the prosecutor, during plea negotiations, to consider in support of a mitigated sentence whether the person has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, was a youth, as defined, at the time of the commission of the offense, or was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking. (3) Existing law, after January 1, 2022, requires the court, when a judgment of imprisonment is imposed and specifies 3 possible terms, to impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. This bill would require the court to impose the lower term if the person has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, was a youth, as defined, at the time of the commission of the offense, or was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking, unless the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that the imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. Existing law authorizes a court, within 120 days after sentencing the defendant or at any time upon a recommendation from specified correctional entities, to recall an inmate's sentence and resentence that inmate to a lesser sentence. This bill would require the court, when resentencing, to consider if the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence, if the defendant was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking prior to or at the time of the commission of the offense, or if the defendant is a youth or was a youth at the time of the commission of the offense, and whether those circumstances were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1170 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1540 and SB 567 to be operative only if this bill, AB 1540, and SB 567 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1) Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. Existing law requires the commission to develop, implement, and administer the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to encourage deployment of high-quality advanced communications services to all Californians that will promote economic growth, job creation, and the substantial social benefits of advanced information and communications technologies. Existing law authorizes the commission to impose a surcharge to collect $330,000,000 for deposit into the CASF beginning January 1, 2018, and continuing through the 2022 calendar year. Existing law specifies the amount of surcharge revenues to be deposited into each account within the CASF, subject to appropriation by the Legislature. This bill would authorize the commission to impose the surcharge to fund the CASF until December 31, 2032, as specified. Existing law requires the commission, until April 1, 2023, to annually report specified information to the Legislature, including the remaining unserved areas in the state, the status of the CASF balance, and the projected amount to be collected in each year. This bill would require the commission to report that information in perpetuity. This bill would authorize the commission to require each internet service provider, as defined, to report specified information regarding each free, low-cost, income-qualified, or affordable internet service plan advertised by the provider. (2) Existing law requires the commission to require interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol service providers to collect and remit surcharges on their California intrastate revenues in support of specified public purpose program funds. Existing law authorizes those providers to use certain methodologies to identify their intrastate revenues subject to the surcharge. This bill would repeal that authorization to use those methodologies. (3) Existing law establishes the deaf and disabled telecommunications program and requires the commission to establish a rate recovery mechanism through a surcharge not to exceed 12 of 1% uniformly applied to a subscriber's intrastate telephone service, other than one-way radio paging service and universal telephone service, until January 1, 2025, to allow providers of equipment and service pursuant to that program to recover their costs as they are incurred. This bill would revise those requirements to instead require the commission to administer a surcharge to collect revenues of up to $100,000,000 per year until January 1, 2025, subject to annual appropriation of moneys by the Legislature, to allow providers of equipment and service pursuant to the deaf and disabled telecommunications program to recover their costs as they are incurred. (4) Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because certain of the above provisions would be part of the act and a violation of a commission action implementing this bill's requirements would be a crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (5) This bill would become effective only if SB 4 of the 2021–22 Regular Session is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2022. (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1) Existing law defines rape as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator under certain circumstances, including where the victim is incapable of giving legal consent because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, where the victim is not aware of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the act serves a professional purpose, and where the victim submits to the act under the belief that the perpetrator is someone known to the victim other than the perpetrator, and the perpetrator intentionally and fraudulently induces that belief. Existing law separately defines rape of a spouse as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with the spouse of the perpetrator under similar circumstances as nonspousal rape, except that spousal rape does not include acts of sexual intercourse accomplished under the specific circumstances described above. This bill would repeal the provisions relating to spousal rape and make conforming changes, thereby making an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a spouse punishable as rape if the act otherwise meets the definition of rape, except that sexual intercourse with a person who is incapable of giving legal consent because of mental disorder or developmental or physical disability would not be rape if the 2 people are married. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law authorizes an employer to request from the Department of Justice records of all convictions or any arrest pending adjudication for specified offenses for a person who applies for a license, employment, or volunteer position, in which the person would have supervisory or disciplinary power over a minor and requires the employer to notify the parent or guardian of a child if a person with specified convictions will have supervisory or disciplinary power over that child. Existing law exempts certain convictions, including spousal rape, from that notification requirement. This bill would remove the exemption for spousal rape or any other felony conviction and would instead exempt only misdemeanor convictions from that notification. The bill would make numerous conforming changes. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1103 of the Evidence Code proposed by AB 939 to be operative only if this bill and AB 939 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3044 of the Family Code proposed by SB 320 and AB 1579 to be operative only if this bill and SB 320, AB 1579, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 13956 of the Government Code proposed by SB 299 to be operative only if this bill and SB 299 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (6) 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.

Existing law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, provides various protections to a consumer with respect to a business that collects the consumer's personal information, including biometric information such as the consumer's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) . The act requires a business that collects a consumer's personal information to, at or before the point of collection, inform the consumer as to the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the information will be used, and grants to a consumer the right to opt-out of the sale of the consumer's personal information by the business to a third party. Existing law also prohibits the disclosure by a health care service plan of the results of a test for a genetic characteristic to a third party in a manner that identifies or provides identifying characteristics of the person to whom the test results apply, except pursuant to a written authorization to do so. This bill would establish the Genetic Information Privacy Act, which would require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, as defined, to provide a consumer with certain information regarding the company's policies and procedures for the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure, as applicable, of genetic data, and to obtain a consumer's express consent for collection, use, or disclosure of the consumer's genetic data, as specified. This bill would require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company to honor a consumer's revocation of consent in accordance with certain procedures, and to destroy a consumer's biological sample within 30 days of revocation of consent. The bill would further require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect a consumer's genetic data against unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure, and develop procedures and practices to enable a consumer to access their genetic data, and to delete their account and genetic data, as specified. The bill would exclude from its provisions the California Newborn Screening Program, specific tests, and certain information, providers, entities, and activities subject to specified state and federal laws. This bill would provide that the act does not reduce a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company's duties, obligations, requirements, or standards under any applicable state and federal law for the protection of privacy and security and would further provide, if a conflict exists between the act and any other law, that the provisions of the law that afford the greatest protection for the right of privacy for consumers shall control. This bill would impose civil penalties for a violation of those provisions, as specified. The bill would require actions for relief pursuant to these provisions to be prosecuted exclusively by the Attorney General, a district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor, as specified, in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of a board, officer, person, corporation, or association or upon a complaint by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the violation of the act. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties, 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 sets the time for commencement of any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of sexual assault, as defined, as the later within 10 years from the date of the last act attempted act, or assault with intent to commit an act of sexual assault by the defendant against the plaintiff or within 3 years from the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that an injury or illness resulted from the sexual assault. The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of claims as a prerequisite to commencement of actions for money or damages against local public entities, as defined. Existing law requires a claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person to be presented not later than 6 months after the accrual of the cause of action. Existing law provides that, unless a different statute of limitations is specifically applicable to the public entity, any action against a public entity upon a cause of action for which a claim is not required to be presented must be commenced within the time prescribed by the statute of limitations that would be applicable if the action were brought against a defendant other than a public entity. This bill would exempt a claim arising out of an alleged sexual assault, as defined, by a law enforcement officer if the alleged assault occurred on or after the plaintiff's 18th birthday and while the officer was employed by a law enforcement agency from all state and local government claim presentation requirements. The bill would, notwithstanding any other law, require the claim to be commenced within the later of either of 10 years after the date of judgment against a law enforcement officer in a criminal case for a crime of sexual assault or a judgment against a law enforcement officer for a different crime if a crime of sexual assault was alleged and the crime for which there was a judgment against a law enforcement officer arose out of the same set of operative facts as the allegation of sexual assault in the present claim or 10 years after the law enforcement officer is no longer employed by the law enforcement agency that employed the officer when the alleged assault occurred. The bill would also, notwithstanding those provisions, revive and authorize to be commenced, a claim seeking to recover damages arising out of a sexual assault by a law enforcement officer, if the alleged sexual assault occurred on or after the plaintiff's 18th birthday while the officer was employed by a law enforcement agency, and the claim has not been litigated to finality or compromised by an executed written settlement agreement, and would otherwise be barred because of the applicable statute of limitations, any state or local government claim presentation deadline, or any other applicable time limit, if it is filed within 10 years from the date of the last act, attempted act, or assault with the intent to commit an act, of sexual assault against the plaintiff or within 3 years from the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that an injury or illness resulted from an act, attempted act, or assault with the intent to commit an act, of sexual assault against the plaintiff.

Existing law, the Student Loan Servicing Act, provides for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation, who is the head of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. The act prohibits a person from engaging in the business of servicing a student loan in this state without a license, unless the person falls within certain exceptions. Existing law, the Student Borrower Bill of Rights, imposes requirements on a student loan servicer, including, among others, the timely posting, processing, and crediting of student loan payments, and applying overpayments consistent with the best financial interest of a student loan borrower. Existing law also prohibits a student loan servicer from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, or abusive acts or practices in connection with the servicing of a student loan, and authorizes a person to bring an action for actual damages, injunctive relief, restitution, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and other relief, including treble damages in certain circumstances. This bill would enact the Private Student Loan Collections Reform Act, which would become operative July 1, 2022. The act would prohibit a private education lender or a private education loan collector, as defined, from making any written statement to a debtor in an attempt to collect a private education loan unless the private education lender or private education loan collector possesses certain information regarding the loan and provides this information to the debtor, as specified. The act would require all settlement agreements between a private education lender or private education loan collector and a debtor to be documented in open court or otherwise reduced to writing, as specified. The act would also require a private education lender or private education loan collector that accepts a payment as payment in full or as a full and final compromise of a private education loan, within 30 calendar days, to provide specified information to the debtor regarding the loan. The act would also prohibit a private education lender or private education loan collector from bringing suit or initiating an arbitration or other legal proceeding to collect a private education loan if the applicable statute of limitations on the claim has expired. The act would require a complaint, with respect to an action brought by a private education lender or private education loan collector to collect a private education loan, to contain specified information and would prohibit a default or other judgment from being entered against a defendant unless documents submitted to the court establish the facts alleged. The act would require a plaintiff seeking an exemption, as an exempt entity, from those requirements to attach to the complaint a declaration or affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, stating certain information. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The act would also authorize a person to bring a cause of action against a creditor, private education lender, or private education loan collector for violating the act for actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, and other specified relief. 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.