Asm. Matt Haney

Existing law, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act, requires dealers of dogs and cats to comply with its provisions, including maintaining certain health and safety standards for pets and providing purchasers and prospective purchasers of pets, upon request, with written notice of consumer rights concerning the sale of a pet, including information about available refunds and other remedies. Existing law prohibits an online pet retailer, as defined, from offering, brokering, making a referral for, or otherwise facilitating a loan or other financing option for, the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or a rabbit. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions subject to a civil penalty. This bill would prohibit, subject to specified exemptions, a broker from making available for adoption, selling, or offering for sale a dog under one year of age, a cat, or rabbit. The bill would define a broker as a person or business that sells, arranges, negotiates, or processes, either in person or online, the sale of dogs, cats, or rabbits bred by another for profit and would include facilitating the transfer of those animals for profit.

Existing law requires a person seeking to bring a dog into this state, or importing a dog into this state, for the purpose of resale or change of ownership to obtain a health certificate with respect to the dog that has been completed by a licensed veterinarian and is dated within 10 days before the date on which the dog is brought into the state. Existing law requires the person to submit the health certificate to the applicable county health department, as specified. This bill would repeal the above-described requirements, and would instead require a person selling, transporting, or importing a dog into the state for the purpose of resale or change of ownership to obtain, and submit to the Department of Food and Agriculture and the buyer, a health certificate for the dog that has been completed by a licensed veterinarian and is dated no more than 10 days before the date on which the dog is brought into the state, as specified. The bill would require that the health certificate contain specified information. The bill would designate the health certificate as a public record, and require the department to retain a health certificate for 5 years. Under existing law, a violation of the Food and Agricultural Code is a misdemeanor, except as specified. Because the requirements of this bill would be part of the Food and Agricultural Code, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would create 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.

Existing law, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act, requires pet dealers, as defined, to disclose at the time of sale of a dog or cat specified information, including, among others, the source of the dog or cat, a record of known diseases or illnesses afflicting the dog or cat, and a record of immunizations or inoculations, worming treatments, veterinarian treatment, or medications received by the dog or cat. Existing law, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, requires dog breeders to disclose, among other things, the aforementioned medical information to purchasers. Existing law makes a person who violates these provisions liable for civil penalties, as specified. Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy. This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a person, pet dealer, or business, while the purchaser is located in California, is void as against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a person, pet dealer, or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser located in California to disclose the original source and medical information of the dog, cat, or rabbit, as specified. The bill would authorize suit against a person, pet dealer, as defined, or business that violates the above-described provisions in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate. The bill would authorize a purchaser affected by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against the person, pet dealer, or business in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions in an action brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction. The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the purchaser within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the purchaser return the contract subject. The bill would specify that these provisions do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by or to a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.

Existing law outlines requirements for civil actions for unlawful detainer filed by landlords to remove tenants from their properties. Existing law also requires plaintiffs to ensure service of a summons and complaint to defendants in civil suits, as specified. Existing law requires a summons to contain, among other things, (1) a direction that the defendant file with the court a written pleading in response to the complaint within 30 days after service on the defendant, (2) a notice that, unless the defendant responds, default will be entered upon application of the plaintiff, (3) a statement advising the defendant of their right to seek an attorney, and (4) an introductory legend at the top of the summons, in English and Spanish, notifying the defendant that they have been sued. This bill would require the Judicial Council to create, by January 1, 2027, a single summons form for mandatory use in an action for unlawful detainer to remove a tenant from a residential property that includes the information specified above in English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean. The bill would require the Judicial Council to publish this form on its internet website.

Under existing law, knowingly buying or receiving stolen property or property that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, as specified, is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony if the value of the property exceeds $950. Existing law prohibits a local authority from regulating sidewalk vendors, except in accordance with certain provisions, including that a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, adopt requirements regulating the time, place, and manner of sidewalk vending if the requirements are directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns. This bill, until January 1, 2031, would authorize the City and County of San Francisco to adopt an ordinance requiring a permit for the sale of specified merchandise on public property, if the ordinance includes specified written findings supported by substantial evidence, including, among other things, that there has been a significant pattern of merchandise being the subject of retail theft and then appearing for sale on public property within the City and County of San Francisco. The bill would require an ordinance adopted by the City and County of San Francisco to, among other things, identify a local permitting agency that is responsible for administering a permit system. The bill would authorize the ordinance to provide specified punishments for selling merchandise without a permit, including that 2nd and 3rd violations within 18 months of the first violation would be punishable as infractions, and that subsequent violations after 3 prior violations, that occur within 18 months of the first violation, would be punishable as infractions or misdemeanors by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that imprisonment and a fine. This bill would authorize the City and County of San Francisco to charge a fee for the cost of issuing a permit, not to exceed the reasonable regulatory costs of implementing the bill, as provided. The bill would authorize the permitting agency to accept specified forms of identification in lieu of a social security number, if the permitting agency otherwise requires a social security number for the issuance of a permit or business license, but would require the number collected from the alternative identification to be confidential, except as provided. The bill would prohibit the permitting agency from inquiring into or collecting certain information, including, information about an individual's immigration or citizenship status or criminal history. This bill would require, if an ordinance is adopted, the permitting agency to submit a report to the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco and the Legislature by January 1 of each year that includes specified information, including, among other things, the list or lists of merchandise that the City and County of San Francisco determined was a common target of retail theft. The bill would require the City and County of San Francisco, at least 60 days prior to the enactment of an ordinance, to hold one or more workshops to inform the development of the ordinance, and would require the City and County of San Francisco to administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the enactment of the ordinance, including public announcements in major media outlets and press releases. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law sets forth various provisions for Medi-Cal coverage of community health worker services, enhanced care management, and community supports, subject to any necessary federal approvals. Under existing law, these benefits are designed to, respectively, provide a link between health and social services and the community; address the clinical and nonclinical needs on a whole-person-care basis for certain target populations of Medi-Cal beneficiaries, including individuals experiencing homelessness; and provide housing transition navigation services, among other supports. This bill would set forth provisions regarding field medicine, as defined, under the Medi-Cal program for persons experiencing homelessness, as defined. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that the field medicine-related provisions coexist with, and not duplicate, other Medi-Cal provisions, including, but not limited to, those regarding community health worker services, enhanced care management, and community supports. The bill would authorize a Medi-Cal managed care plan to elect to offer Medi-Cal covered services through a field medicine provider, as defined. Under the bill, a managed care plan that elects to do so would be required to allow a Medi-Cal member who is experiencing homelessness to receive those services directly from an in-network, contracted field medicine provider, regardless of the member's in-network assignment, as specified. The bill would also require the managed care plan to allow an in-network, contracted field medicine provider enrolled in Medi-Cal to directly refer a member who is experiencing homelessness for covered services within the appropriate network, as specified. The bill would require a managed care plan to have appropriate mechanisms, procedures, or protocols to ensure timely communication between the in-network, contracted field medicine provider, the Medi-Cal member's plan or independent practice association, and the member's primary care provider for purposes of care coordination and to prevent the duplication of services. The bill would require a managed care plan to provide a method for a Medi-Cal member to inform the managed care plan online, in person, or via telephone that the member is experiencing homelessness. The bill would require the department to inform a managed care plan if a member has indicated that they are experiencing homelessness based on information furnished on the Medi-Cal application. In the case of a Medi-Cal beneficiary who is experiencing homelessness and who receives services within the fee-for-service delivery system, the bill would require the department to reimburse a field medicine provider enrolled in Medi-Cal for providing Medi-Cal covered services. The bill would condition implementation of the above-described provisions on receipt of any necessary federal approvals and the availability of federal financial participation. The bill would require, on or before January 1, 2027, that the standard application form for insurance affordability programs include an optional question for an applicant to identify whether they are experiencing homelessness. The bill would make conforming changes to related provisions under existing law regarding the application process. The bill would also remove obsolete references within related provisions. To the extent that the bill would create new duties for counties with regard to data sharing under Medi-Cal, 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.

The California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 provides the Division of Occupational Safety and Health within the Department of Industrial Relations with the power, jurisdiction, and supervision over all employment and places of employment necessary to enforce and administer all occupational health and safety laws and to protect employees. The act grants to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, an independent entity within the department, exclusive authority to adopt occupational safety and health standards within the state. Beginning July 1, 2018, and every 5 years thereafter, the act requires the board, in consultation with the department, to complete a comprehensive review of all revisions to National Fire Protection Association standards pertaining to certain personal protective equipment (PPE) and requires the board to consider modifying existing safety orders and to render a decision regarding the adoption of necessary changes to safety orders, or other applicable standards and regulations, no later than July 1 of the subsequent year, if the review finds that the revisions to applicable National Fire Protection Association standards provide a greater degree of personal protection than the safety orders. This bill would, in addition to the above-described requirement, require the board to consider modifying its existing safety order regarding firefighter personal protective equipment by January 1, 2028, to address National Fire Protection Association performance standards for PPE that are not relevant or applicable to how firefighters utilize their PPE and that result in the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, fluoropolymers, flame retardants, and other hazardous substances in firefighting personal protective garments and auxiliary firefighting PPE, as provided. The bill would also require, by July 1, 2026, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to report on progress toward implementation of the modified PPE safety standards, as provided. The bill would also make related findings and declarations.

Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. This bill would remove prohibitions imposed on a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public funds, as defined, for the purpose of seeking elective office unless the funds are earmarked by a state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. The bill would require candidates to abide by specified expenditure limits and meet strict criteria, as defined, to qualify for public funds. The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to pay legal defense fees or fines or to repay personal loans to their campaign. The bill would permit a statute, ordinance, or charter to establish standards to increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not responsible for administering or enforcing a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency. Existing law prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal, as defined, from making a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. Under existing law, a person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine equal to the amount contributed or expended. This bill would instead require that a person guilty of that misdemeanor, in addition to other penalties, be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding a maximum amount of 3 times the amount contributed or expended. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters. This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill, as specified, to the voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 85320 of the Government Code proposed by AB 953 to be operative pursuant to specified conditions.

Existing law, known as the Donahoe Higher Education Act, establishes the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California as the public segments of postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requires the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, and the governing board of every community college district to adopt or provide for the adoption of specific rules and regulations governing student behavior and to adopt procedures by which all students are informed of the rules and regulations, with applicable penalties, as provided. Provisions of the act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make a provision applicable. Existing federal law requires, as a condition of receiving federal funds or other forms of financial assistance, institutions of higher education to annually distribute to each student and employee standards of conduct that clearly prohibit unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs or alcohol, as provided, and a clear statement that the institution will impose sanctions for violations of the standards of conduct. Existing federal law characterizes the completion of an appropriate rehabilitation program as a permissible form of the required sanctions. This bill would require the Regents of the University of California and the Trustees of the California State University, in adopting the above-described rules and regulations, to place in the highest priority the health, safety, and well-being of the campus community. The bill would also require those entities, on or before July 1, 2026, to adopt, or provide for the adoption of, rules and regulations that (1) prohibit students receiving medical treatment for the personal use of drugs or alcohol in violation of the rules and regulations governing student behavior from being subject to disciplinary action for that use of drugs or alcohol if they complete an appropriate rehabilitation program, as defined, and (2) require students who receive medical treatment for the personal use of drugs or alcohol in a manner that violates the rules or regulations of the university to be offered the chance to complete an appropriate rehabilitation program, as provided. The bill would establish that this prohibition on disciplinary action, and the requirement that the university offer an appropriate rehabilitation program, only apply to a student once in an academic semester, quarter, or term, as provided.

Existing law declares the public policy of the state regarding labor organization, including, among other things, that it is necessary for a worker to have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Existing law establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in state government as a means of resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of specified public employers and employees under various acts regulating collective bargaining. Under existing law, PERB has the power and duty to investigate an unfair practice charge and to determine whether the charge is justified and the appropriate remedy for the unfair practice. Existing law, the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) , establishes a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating unfair labor practices on the part of employers and labor organizations in industries affecting interstate commerce, and vests in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the power to conduct elections to determine employee representatives and to prevent unfair labor practices affecting commerce. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. This bill would expand PERB's jurisdiction by authorizing a worker, to petition PERB to protect and enforce prescribed rights under specified circumstances, including if the worker is employed in a position subject to the NLRA but the NLRB has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction. The bill would authorize PERB to, among other things, decide unfair labor practice cases pursuant to a specified timeline and order all appropriate relief for a violation, including civil penalties, as prescribed. In order to pursue relief from PERB, the bill would require a covered worker or their representative to file an unfair practice charge or petition that includes specified information, including, where applicable, the original charge or petition filed with the NLRB. The bill would require PERB to hold the supporting documentation and evidence confidential and maintain it as part of its investigatory file and would exempt this documentation and evidence from the California Public Records Act. If PERB determines, among other things, it has insufficient resources to process certain cases or doing so would prevent it from meeting specified statutory deadlines, the bill would require PERB to process and prioritize charges, as specified. The bill would also establish the Public Employment Relations Board Enforcement Fund (fund) in the State Treasury, would require the above-described civil penalties to be deposited into the fund, and would make moneys in the fund available upon appropriation by the Legislature to PERB for the purpose of administering the above-specified provisions. The bill would authorize PERB to rely on its own decisions and precedent under the NLRA and would authorize review of its decisions by a state appellate court, as specified. Existing law, the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, grants agricultural employees the right to form and join labor organizations and engage in collective bargaining, as specified, and prohibits agricultural employers and labor organizations from engaging in unfair labor practices. Those provisions establish the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) and empower the ALRB to prevent any person from engaging in those practices. Existing law establishes various definitions for these purposes. Existing law requires the ALRB to follow applicable precedents of the NLRA. This bill would specify that the ALRB has exclusive jurisdiction in all phases of the administration of the act, and to determine whether any person or entity meets one or more of those definitions. The bill would instead authorize the board to follow applicable precedents of the NLRA, but would not obligate the board to follow precedents where the ALRB deems it inappropriate to do so. This bill would make related findings and declarations and would make its provisions severable. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.