Asm. Donald Wagner

This measure would designate May 2012 as Foster Care Month in California.

Existing law specifies the judgments and orders from which an appeal may be taken to the court of appeal. This bill would add an order granting or denying class action certification, allowing appeal from the order at the discretion of the court of appeal. The bill would specify various factors the court would be required to consider in determining whether to allow the appeal.

This measure would designate the second full week in April as California Public Safety Telecommunicators Week.

Existing law requires instruction in social sciences to include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of specified groups of people to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society. This bill would instead authorize instruction in social sciences to include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of specified groups of people to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.

This measure would proclaim May 6, 2012, to May 12, 2012, inclusive, to be California Charter Schools Week, and would state that the Legislature joins the California Charter Schools Association in congratulating charter schools for the accomplishments and contributions they have made to public education.

This measure would designate April 18, 2012, as DMV/Donate Life California Day in the State of California, and April 2012 as DMV/Donate Life California Month in the State of California, and would encourage all Californians to be organ, tissue, and blood donors.

This measure would honor and recognize the service and sacrifice made by members of the Armed Forces and their families on the occasion of Armed Forces Day on May 19, 2012.

Existing law, known as the hearsay rule, provides that, at a hearing, evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated is inadmissible. Existing law also provides exceptions to the hearsay rule to permit the admission of specified kinds of evidence. This bill would specify that evidence of a record, which meets certain requirements relating to the subpoena of business records, that is received by an investigating officer pursuant to a search warrant or subpoena is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule against the defendant at a preliminary hearing in a criminal action.

Existing law specifies the circumstances in which an undertaking is required in order for the enforcement of a judgment or order to be stayed on appeal, including if the judgment or order is for money or the payment of money, or for costs awarded pursuant to specified provisions. This bill would provide that the undertaking in these cases shall not exceed $25,000,000, and, if the party posting the undertaking is an individual or small business, as defined, the undertaking shall not exceed $1,000,000.

Existing law provides that every person is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself. Existing law governs the tort liability and immunity of, and claims and actions against, public entities and their officers and employees. Existing law provides that a public employee who acts in good faith, without malice, and under the apparent authority of an enactment that is unconstitutional, invalid, or inapplicable, is not liable for an injury caused thereby, except to the extent that he or she would have been liable had the enactment been constitutional, valid, and applicable. This bill would provide that any person who relies upon a written order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy of a state agency shall not be liable or subject to punishment for a violation of a civil statute or regulation in a judicial or administrative proceeding if the person pleads and proves to the trier of fact that, at the time the alleged act or omission occurred, the person had sought an applicable written order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy from the state agency charged with interpreting that area of law, and relied upon and conformed to that order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy. The bill would provide that these provisions apply to all actions and proceedings that have not resulted in a final judgment on or after January 1, 2013, regardless of whether the action or proceeding was commenced, or based upon, an alleged act or omission that occurred before, on, or after January 1, 2013. Additionally, the bill would state that it would not require a state agency to issue an order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or enforcement policy.