The California Franchise Relations Act sets forth certain requirements related to the termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises between a franchisor, subfranchisor, and franchisee, as those terms are defined. Existing law provides that any condition purporting to bind any person to waive compliance with the act is contrary to public policy and void. This bill would provide that a condition of a franchise agreement requiring the franchisee to waive the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is contrary to public policy and void. The bill would prohibit a franchise agreement from restricting the right of a franchisee to join or participate in an association of franchisees to the extent the restriction is prohibited by existing law. The bill would prohibit a franchise agreement from preventing a franchisee from selling or transferring a franchise or a part of the interest of a franchise to another person, except as provided. The bill would prohibit a franchise agreement from giving a franchisee a right to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise, or a right thereunder, without the consent of the franchisor, as provided. The bill would prohibit a franchise agreement from allowing the transferring franchisee to fail to notify the franchisor of the franchisee's decision to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise, as provided. Existing law prohibits a franchisor from terminating a franchise agreement prior to the expiration of its term, except for good cause, as defined, and upon the occurrence of specified events. This bill would prohibit a franchisor from terminating a franchise agreement prior to the expiration of its term unless there is a substantial and material breach on the part of the franchisee of a lawful requirement of the franchise agreement, except as otherwise provided. Existing law requires a franchisor that terminates or fails to renew a franchise, other than in accordance with specified provisions of law, to offer to repurchase from the franchisee the franchisee's resalable current inventory, as specified. This bill would require a franchisor that terminates or fails to allow the sale, transfer, or assignment of a franchise, other than in accordance with specified provisions of law, to, at the election of the franchisee, either reinstate the franchisee and pay specified damages or pay to the franchisee the fair market value of the franchise and franchise assets, as provided.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law requires a health care service plan to submit a filing to the department at least 75 days prior to the termination date of its contract with a provider group or a general acute care hospital that includes the written notice the plan proposes to send to its affected enrollees. The filing is required to be reviewed and approved by the department prior to the notice being sent to the enrollees. Existing law also requires the plan to provide written notice to affected enrollees, as provided, prior to the termination date of a contract between the plan and a provider group or a general acute care hospital. A plan operating as a preferred provider organization is only required to send the written notice to all enrollees who reside within a 15-mile radius of a terminated hospital if it is a general acute care hospital. This bill would delete the requirements with regard to preferred provider organizations. The bill would change the timing of the 75-day filing to 30 days prior to the termination date for a contract between a health care service plan that is not a health maintenance organization and a provider group or general acute care hospital. The bill would distinguish between enrollees of an assigned group provider and enrollees of an unassigned group provider for purposes of whether the filing is required to be submitted to the department. The bill would also require that the plan send a department-approved written notice to the enrollees, whether or not a filing was required, when a provider group contract or a general acute care hospital contract is terminated. The bill would distinguish between the enrollees of an assigned or an unassigned provider group or general acute care hospital with regard to the timing of the consumer notice and method of delivery. With respect to the termination of a contract with an unassigned provider group or general acute care hospital, the bill would impose specified continued access to services requirements, billing requirements, and requirements to obtain information from the terminated provider group or general acute care hospital regarding enrollees who have services scheduled with the terminated provider group or general acute care hospital for after the termination date using a process agreed upon in the terminating contract. The bill would authorize the department to develop a standard format for the required notices. Because a willful violation of these requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Under existing law, a health insurer may contract with providers for alternative rates of payment. Existing law requires those insurers to file a policy with the department describing how the insurer facilitates the continuity of care for new insureds under group policies receiving services for an acute condition from a noncontracting provider. Existing law also requires those health insurers to, at the request of an insured, arrange for the completion of covered services by a terminated provider if the insured is undergoing treatment for certain conditions, as specified. This bill would require, among other things, a health insurer to submit a filing to the department, at least 30 days prior to the termination date of its contract with a provider group or a general acute care hospital to provide services at alternative rates of payment, that includes the written notice the insurer proposes to send to its insureds. The bill would require the filing to be reviewed and approved by the department prior to the notice being sent to the insureds. The bill would set a threshold for the number of insureds receiving health care services from a group provider within the preceding 12 months for purposes of whether the filing is required to be submitted to the department. The bill would also require that the health insurer send a department-approved written notice to specified insureds, whether or not a filing was required, when a provider group contract or a general acute care hospital contract is terminated, and would impose specified continued access to services requirements, billing requirements, and requirements to obtain information from the terminated provider group or general acute care hospital regarding insureds who have services scheduled with the terminated provider group or general acute care hospital for after the termination date using a process agreed upon in the terminating contract. The bill would authorize the department to develop a standard format for the required notices. Existing law requires disability insurance policies to include a disclosure form that contains specified information, including the principal benefits and coverage of the policy, the exceptions, reductions, and limitations that apply to the policy, and a statement, with respect to health insurance policies, describing how participation in the policy may affect the choice of physician, hospital, or health care providers, and describing the extent of financial liability that may be incurred if care is furnished by a nonparticipating provider. With respect to health insurance policies, this bill would require the disclosure form to include additional information, including conditions and procedures for cancellation, rescission, or nonrenewal, a description of the limitations on the insured's choice of provider, and, with respect to insurers that contract for alternate rates of payment, a statement describing the basic method of reimbursement made to its participating providers, as specified. The bill would also require the first page of the disclosure form for health insurance policies to include other specified information. The bill would require a health insurer, medical group, or participating provider that uses or receives financial bonuses or other incentives to provide a written summary of specified information to any requesting person. 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.
Under existing law, the Department of Food and Agriculture is responsible for enforcing provisions relating to the importation of animals, milk and milk products, produce dealers, and other agricultural regulations. Existing law, the California Meat and Poultry Inspection Act, establishes a meat and poultry inspection program and, in connection with the operation of that program by the department, authorizes the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to adopt, by regulation, standards and requirements that meet those prescribed by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Federal Poultry Products Inspection Act. This bill would prohibit a livestock or poultry product from being sold in California if the livestock or poultry product is constituted of livestock or poultry that was administered a medically important antimicrobial for nontherapeutic use, such as growth promotion, feed efficiency, weight gain, or disease prevention. The bill would also prohibit a livestock or poultry product sold in California to be constituted of livestock or poultry that was administered a medically important antimicrobial for nonroutine disease control unless certain conditions are met. The bill would prohibit a livestock or poultry product from being sold in California unless the livestock or poultry product is constituted wholly or in part of livestock or poultry that was slaughtered at a registered slaughter facility and the slaughter facility annually reports specified information to the department regarding the use of medically important antimicrobials. The bill would also prohibit a medically important antimicrobial from being administered to a food-producing animal unless the medically important antimicrobial is administered for a therapeutic use and consistently with specified veterinarian provisions. The bill would require the department to establish, by regulation, a schedule for the implementation of these provisions and require that they be fully implemented on or before on January 1, 2020. The bill would require the department to post the information reported by the slaughter facilities on an Internet Web site commencing on or before December 31, 2017. This bill would require the department to adopt any regulations necessary to implement the provisions of the bill.
This measure would designate Monday, May 5, 2014, as California Peace Officers' Memorial Day, urge all Californians to use that day to honor California peace officers, and recognize specified California peace officers who were killed in defense of their communities.
Existing law creates an enhanced fleet modernization program for the retirement of high polluting vehicles to be administered by the Bureau of Automotive Repair in the Department of Consumer Affairs pursuant to guidelines adopted by the State Air Resources Board. Existing law requires the department to pay a person who retires his or her vehicle $1,500 for a low-income motor vehicle owner, as defined, and $1,000 for all other motor vehicle owners, and authorizes additional payments above these amounts based on consideration of specified criteria. Under existing law, the Bureau of Automotive Repair establishes the Consumer Assistance Program to provide incentives for low-income motor vehicle owners to retire a qualified vehicle. This bill would require the guidelines adopted by the state board to additionally include specific goals for retirement and replacement of passenger vehicles and light- and medium-duty trucks that are high polluters. The bill would require the state board and the bureau to cooperate in the issuance of a specified number of replacement vouchers through the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program for specified fiscal years and a specified number of retirement vouchers through the Consumer Assistance Program and the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program for specified fiscal years. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature regarding the funding of these activities. The bill would require the state board to study and consider specified elements. The bill would require the state board and the bureau, on or before September 1, 2016, to make publicly available, on their respective Internet Web sites, a report regarding whether the goals for the numbers of vehicle retirements and replacements have been met and, if not, the manner in which the state board and the bureau plan to revise the program to increase the numbers of vehicle retirements and replacements.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, protects and safeguards the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation. This bill would include "familial status," as defined, as an additional basis upon which the right to seek, obtain, and hold employment cannot be denied.
(1) Existing law, the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $11,140,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a safe drinking water and water supply reliability program. Existing law provides for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. This bill would repeal these provisions. (2) Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water supply and protection facilities and programs. Existing law, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 84 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,388,000,000 for the purposes of financing safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, natural resource protection, and park improvements. Existing law, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1E at the November 7, 2006, general statewide election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,090,000,000 for the purposes of financing disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects. Existing law, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 50 at the November 5, 2002, statewide general election, authorizes, for the purposes of financing a safe drinking water, water quality, and water reliability program, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $3,440,000,000. Existing law, the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000, approved by the voters as Proposition 13 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $1,970,000,000 for the purposes of financing a safe drinking water, clean water, watershed protection, and flood protection program. Existing law, the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act, approved by the voters as Proposition 204 at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $995,000,000 for the purposes of financing a safe, clean, reliable water supply program. Existing law, the Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986, approved by the voters as Proposition 44 at the June 3, 1986, statewide primary election, authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $150,000,000 for the purposes of financing a water conservation and water quality program. This bill would enact the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $7,120,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a water quality, supply, and infrastructure improvement program. This bill, upon voter approval, would reallocate $425,000,000 of the unissued bonds authorized for the purposes of Propositions 1E, 13, 44, 50, 84, and 204 to finance the purposes of a water quality, supply, and infrastructure improvement program. This bill would provide for the submission of these provisions to the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires a person undertaking development in the coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit in accordance with prescribed procedures. Existing law authorizes the superior court to impose civil liability on a person who performs or undertakes development that is in violation of the act or that is inconsistent with a previously issued coastal development permit, and on a person who violates the act in any other manner. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2019, the California Coastal Commission to impose upon a person who violates the act an administrative civil penalty by a majority vote of the commissioners, upon consideration of various factors, and in an amount not to exceed 75% of the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed in the superior court, as specified. The bill would require the penalty to be assessed for each day the violation persists, but for no more than 5 years. This bill would prohibit a person, as defined, from being subject to both this monetary civil liability imposed by the commission and a monetary civil liability imposed by the superior court for the same act or failure to act. The bill, in the event that a person who is assessed a penalty by the commission fails to pay the penalty, fails to comply with a restoration or cease and desist order, or challenges any of these actions in a court of law, would authorize the commission to maintain an action or otherwise engage in judicial proceedings to enforce those requirements and would authorize the court to grant relief, as specified. This bill would also allow the commission to record a lien on the property of a violator in the amount of the penalty assessed by the commission if the violator fails to pay the penalty. The bill would prohibit the assessment of administrative penalties if the homeowner corrects the violations, as specified. The bill would specify that the repeal of the authority to impose a penalty would not terminate the authority of the commission to impose and collect an administrative penalty for a violation for which the commission commenced an enforcement proceeding on a date prior to the repeal date.
This measure would urge the President and Congress of the United States to take specified action and adopt specified policies designed to protect unaccompanied minors immigrating to the United States.
(1) Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission, commonly known as the PUC, has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, as defined. The Public Utilities Act prohibits any electrical corporation from beginning the construction of, among other things, a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof, without having first obtained from the PUC a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require that construction. A violation of the act, or an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Existing federal law requires an operator of a nuclear fission thermal powerplant to obtain from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission a license for the operation of the powerplant. This bill would enact the Nuclear Energy Planning and Responsibility Act and would require the PUC to require an applicant electrical corporation applying for ratepayer funding, or reopening an existing application for ratepayer funding, for the relicensing of a nuclear fission thermal powerplant with a generation capacity of 50 megawatts or greater by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to submit a detailed study of the project needs and costs in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of the continued operation of the nuclear fission thermal powerplant. Because a violation of this provision would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the PUC to make the study available on its Internet Web site and to independently review the study to assess the cost-effectiveness of the continued operation of the nuclear fission thermal powerplant. (2) 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.