BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1672|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1672
Author: Assembly Judiciary Committee
Amended: 8/17/99 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 9-0, 7/13/99
AYES: Burton, Escutia, Haynes, Morrow, O'Connell, Peace,
Sher, Wright, Schiff
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 6/1/99 (Passed on Consent) - See
last page for vote
SUBJECT : Civil Practice and Procedure Omnibus Bill
SOURCE : Judicial Council
California Integrated Waste Management Board
California Association of Photocopiers and
Process Servers
California Assoc. of County Treasurers and Tax
Collectors
DIGEST : This is the Assembly Judiciary Committee's
annual omnibus civil practice and procedure bill, dealing
with, among other things: legal document assistants;
process servers; bonds; administrative penalties; in forma
pauperis fee waivers; and auditors and tax collectors.
ANALYSIS : This is the Assembly Judiciary Committee's
annual omnibus civil practice and procedure bill.
CONTINUED
AB 1672
Page
2
According to the Committee staff, the provisions of the
bill have been circulated to many interest organizations
and legal experts to assure the non-controversial nature of
the bill, including the Judicial Council, State Bar of
California, California District Attorneys Association,
California Association of Realtors, Western Center on Law
and Poverty, and the California Department of Consumer
Affairs, among others.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee states that any provisions
that are found to have any controversy will be excised from
the bill.
The bill contains both technical and substantive
amendments. The following list addresses each section of
the bill and its stated reason for the change:
Sections 1 Through 5: Legal Document Assistants
Last year the Legislature enacted SB 1418 (Rosenthal, Ch.
1079, Stats. 1998), which specified the types of services
which legal document assistants can provide, required
registration, and enacted penalties for legal document
assistants who provide unauthorized services.
The sections in this bill provide some clean-up amendments
to those provisions regarding cross-references, and also
would make some substantive changes. These amendments
include:
1.Clarifying that the registration and other requirements
apply to legal document assistants employed by a
partnership or corporation.
2.Increasing the bond that accompanies an application for a
certificate of registration by a partnership or
corporation to $50,000, and specifying that an individual
filing an application need only provide the existing
$25,000 bond.
Section 6: Registration Exemptions for Process Servers
Current law requires all persons making 10 or more services
of process, for a fee, to register with county clerks,
AB 1672
Page
3
unless an exemption applies. Current law also provides an
exemption for registered photocopiers under Business and
Professions Code Section 22450, when the only service of
process relates to document subpoenas.
This amendment, requested by the California Association of
Photocopiers and Process Servers, would provides that the
above-stated exemption extends to the employees of
registered photocopiers, in addition to the companies
themselves.
Section 7: Authorization for Certain Persons Convicted of
a Felony to Register as Process Servers
Current law prohibits those convicted of a felony from
registering as process servers under Section 22350 of the
Business and Professions Code. No exception is provided
for those with felony convictions, even if the person has
obtained a certificate of rehabilitation or expungement
from the court, or have been subject of a pardon. This
provision, sponsored by the California Association of
Photocopiers and Process Servers, would provide an
exception to allow those convicted of a felony to register
as process servers if they have obtained a copy of a
certificate of rehabilitation, expungement, or pardon.
Section 8: Subsequent Arrest Notifications Regarding
Process Servers and Contempt Proceedings
As set forth above, current law prohibits an individual
convicted of a felony from registering as a process server.
The law also requests that initial certificate of
registration to include a completed fingerprint card for
submission to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI
to verify that the registrant has not been convicted of a
felony.
According to the sponsor of this provision, the California
Association of Photocopiers and Process Servers, it was
assumed that county clerks would contract with DOJ for
Subsequent Arrest Notifications, which would provide
information on felonies after the initial certificate is
issued. Without such a contract, counties are unaware of a
later conviction. The change would require clerks to
AB 1672
Page
4
contract for subsequent arrest notifications, but requires
the registrants to submit new fingerprint cards at the time
of renewal if the contract was executed after the initial
certificate is filed.
This section also gives courts the ability to issue an
order to show case for contempt when a process server fails
to surrender an identification card after notification that
registration is revoked because the county has been
notified that the registrant has been convicted of a
felony.
Sections 9 and 10: Alternatives to Bonds for Process
Servers
Existing law requires a certificate of registration for a
process server to be accompanied by a $2,000 bond from an
admitted surety insurer. The total aggregate liability on
the bond is limited to $2,000. There is no cash equivalent
alternative to the bond provided in this section.
The sponsor of this section, the California Association of
Photocopiers and Process Servers, states that there should
be an alternative for those who are unable to obtain a bond
or who prefer to deposit a cash equivalent. The sponsor
also notes that existing law regarding submitting new bonds
after a recovery on the initial bond, refers to a "cash
deposit."
This provision provides: "As an alternative to the bond,
the registrant may deposit with the clerk, cash, a check,
or money order in the amount of two thousand dollars
($2,000)." In the section regarding renewing a bond, it
would allow for a "cash deposit." While it would seem
appropriate to allow cash or a money order in place of a
bond, it would seem risky to allow use of a "check" as an
alternative. To avoid problems with insufficient funds,
the use of a check should probably be deleted.
Section 12: Deposits with the Court in Lieu of a Bond
Existing law provides that an appeal from a money judgment
does not stay enforcement of the judgment "[u]nless an
undertaking is given." The Bond and Undertaking Law governs
AB 1672
Page
5
the undertaking procedures for appeals, as well as for most
other bonds and undertakings required by law.
An undertaking on appeal is often accomplished by posting a
bond by an admitted surety insurer, but, until this year,
appellants also had the option of making a deposit with the
trial court in lieu of a bond. This alternative saved the
appellants the cost of paying the premium of a bond.
According to the sponsor, Judicial Council, Section 995.710
of the Code of Civil Procedure authorized the option of
filing with the court. However, SB 1652 (1998) eliminated
the option by providing that the section "may not be
utilized after January 1, 1999."
According to the Judicial Council, SB 1652 appears not to
have had appeal undertakings as an intended target. The
legislative history shows the bill was sponsored by the
Secretary of State to preclude deposits with the Secretary
that were being made by certain businesses to comply with
consumer protection laws. These deposits are governed by
the Bond and Undertaking Law, but the sponsor notes that so
are many other types of deposits in lieu of bonds. The
sponsor suggests amending the provision in Section 995.710
which would preclude its use after January 1, 1999, to only
those deposits with the Secretary of the State.
Apparently, the Secretary of the State has signed off on
this provision.
Section 13: Auditor and Tax Collector's Duties in Eminent
Domain
Existing law provides that in eminent domain proceedings,
in an order the court shall give the tax collector the
legal description of the property sought to be taken and
direct the tax collector to certify to the court, among
other things, the assessed value of the property and all
unpaid taxes.
This section, sponsored by the California Association of
County Treasurers and Tax Collection, would provide that
any county where both the auditor and tax collector are
elected officials, the court shall give the above-described
order to either the auditor or tax collector. The sponsor
AB 1672
Page
6
argues that it is appropriate to direct this order to the
auditor since the auditor is directed to calculate taxes
and maintain the charge to the tax collector. The sponsor
further argues that this change is appropriate since
existing law directs the auditor to cancel taxes based on
the date of apportionment, and to adjust the assessment
roll and the tax charge.
Section 14: Clarification on Right to Depose a Party More
Than Once
This section would clarify the ability of a party to take a
subsequent deposition of a person that has already been
deposed under Section 2025(t) of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The sponsor of this section is Quentin L. Kopp,
who stated that he recently experienced confusion over this
provision sitting as a judge in court.
According to the sponsor, the first sentence of Section
2025(t) "establishes the general rule of one deposition of
any person. The second sentence permits a subsequent
deposition 'for good cause shown, . . .' The third
sentence appears at first blush to permit a subsequent
deposition of a person previously deposed, but only in two
circumstances. The fourth sentence prohibits more than
deposition ' for the limited purpose of Section 485.230
[regarding procedures for issuance of a writ of
attachment]."
The sponsor argues that this section should be clarified so
there is no question about the power to take a deposition
on the issues of the case and then take a subsequent
deposition of the assets of the same person if a court
order has been secured under Section 485.230 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. This section would clarify that right.
Section 16: Verification of Eligibility for In Forma
Pauperis Fee Waivers
Four years ago, the Judicial Council sponsored legislation
to allow courts to verify a party's indigent status. This
provision is clean-up legislation to address problems that
have arisen. Four years ago, the fee waivers statute was
amended to allow a person who claimed to be indigent by the
AB 1672
Page
7
fact that they were receiving welfare assistance to either
bring proof of their Medi-cal application or to voluntarily
provide the court with their social security number. The
court was supposed to be able to use an 800 number to call
and verify that the person was in fact a Medi-cal
recipient.
According to the Judicial Council, a problem has arisen
because, in addition to a person's social security number,
the court needs their date of birth in order for the 800
number verification system to work. In addition, for most
recipients, their social security number and Medi-cal
identification numbers are the same. If, however, the
recipient has no social security number, the state issues
them a separate ID number. This section would amend the
statute so that the voluntary option of providing a social
security number also includes the individual's date of
birth, and if necessary, their Medi-cal ID number.
Section 17: Conversion of an Administrative Penalty into a
Civil Judgment
This section is sponsored by the California Integrated
Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Existing law authorizes
the CIWMB to impose an administrative penalty against a
person who violates various Public Resources Code Sections.
However, according to CIWMB, the problem is that they have
difficulty in collecting these penalties.
Existing law provides that, in addition to the
administrative imposition of civil penalties, the CIWMB may
petition the court to impose, assess and recover civil
penalties as well. However, pursuant to these amendments,
CIWMB seeks the ability to convert an administrative
penalty into a civil judgment in superior court without
having to petition the court and involve the Attorney
General as they do now. The CIWMB notes that the language
in the bill is patterned after Water Code Section 13328,
which already provides a similar procedure for the State
Water Resources Control Board to convert administrative
penalties into civil judgments.
The CIWMB argues that this proposal would increase the
probability of actually collecting on delinquent penalties.
AB 1672
Page
8
Further, it contends that this collection success would
fortify the deterrent effects of future enforcement
actions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/24/99)
Judicial Council (co-source)
California Integrated Waste Management Board (co-source)
California Association of Photocopiers and Process Servers
(co-source)
California Association of County Treasurers and Tax
Collectors (co-source)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 6/1/99
AYES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn,
Baldwin, Bates, Battin, Baugh, Bock, Briggs, Calderon,
Campbell, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa,
Cox, Cunneen, Davis, Dickerson, Ducheny, Dutra,
Firebaugh, Florez, Floyd, Frusetta, Gallegos, Granlund,
Havice, Hertzberg, Honda, House, Jackson, Kaloogian,
Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Leach, Lempert, Leonard, Longville,
Lowenthal, Machado, Maddox, Maldonado, Margett, Mazzoni,
McClintock, Migden, Nakano, Olberg, Oller, Robert
Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Papan, Pescetti, Reyes, Romero,
Runner, Scott, Shelley, Soto, Steinberg, Strickland,
Strom-Martin, Thompson, Thomson, Torlakson, Vincent,
Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman, Wright,
Zettel, Villaraigosa
NOT VOTING: Brewer
RJG:cm 8/24/99 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****