Existing law, the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, requires the appointment of legal counsel to represent low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs in courts selected by the Judicial Council. The act requires the Judicial Council to develop one or more programs to provide competitive grants to provide legal counsel to low-income persons who require legal services in civil matters involving specific types of civil matters, including, among others, housing-related matters, probate conservatorships, guardianships, and domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to consider various factors, including, among others, the unmet need for legal services in the geographic area to be served, in selecting and renewing participating programs. Existing law requires program applicants, among other things, to describe how the program would be administered and the means by which the program would serve the particular needs of the community, such as by providing representation to limited-English-speaking clients.

Commencing January 1, 2025, this bill would require courts to report specified information to the Judicial Council each month regarding unlawful detainer cases, aggregated by ZIP Code. The bill also would require courts to report to the Judicial Council case summary data on COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court, aggregated by ZIP Code. The bill would require the Judicial Council, every 4 months, to post all information received about unlawful detainer cases in a publicly available electronic spreadsheet that may be downloaded from its internet website.

Existing law, the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, requires the appointment of legal counsel to represent low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs in courts selected by the Judicial Council. The act requires the Judicial Council to develop one or more programs to provide competitive grants to provide legal counsel to low-income persons who require legal services in civil matters involving specific types of civil matters, including, among others, housing-related matters, probate conservatorships, guardianships, and domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to consider various factors, including, among others, the unmet need for legal services in the geographic area to be served, in selecting and renewing participating programs. Existing law requires program applicants, among other things, to describe how the program would be administered and the means by which the program would serve the particular needs of the community, such as by providing representation to limited-English-speaking clients.

Commencing January 1, 2025, this bill would require courts to report specified information to the Judicial Council each month regarding unlawful detainer cases, aggregated by ZIP Code. The bill also would require courts to report to the Judicial Council case summary data on COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court, aggregated by ZIP Code. The bill would require the Judicial Council Council, every 4 months, to post all information received about unlawful detainer cases in a publicly available electronic spreadsheet that may be downloaded from its internet website.

Existing law, the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, requires the appointment of legal counsel to represent low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs in courts selected by the Judicial Council. The act requires the Judicial Council to develop one or more programs to provide competitive grants to provide legal counsel to low-income persons who require legal services in civil matters involving specific types of civil matters, including, among others, housing-related matters, probate conservatorships, guardianships, and domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to consider various factors, including, among others, the unmet need for legal services in the geographic area to be served, in selecting and renewing participating programs. Existing law requires program applicants, among other things, to describe how the program would be administered and the means by which the program would serve the particular needs of the community, such as by providing representation to limited-English-speaking clients.

This bill would require courts to report specified information to the Judicial Council regarding unlawful detainer cases, aggregated by ZIP Code. The bill also would require courts to report to the Judicial Council case summary data on COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court, aggregated by ZIP Code. The bill would require the Judicial Council to post all information received about unlawful detainer cases in a publicly available electronic spreadsheet that may be downloaded from its internet website.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 875

Author:(Gabriel)

As Enrolled Ver:September 14, 2023

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Requires California courts to report aggregated data regarding unlawful detainer actions.

Major Provisions

1. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the total number of each of the following data points for unlawful detainer cases, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. Cases filed each month;
   2. Cases in which defendants were represented by counsel at case closing;
   3. Cases in which a fee waiver was granted;
   4. Cases that were subject to default, stipulated, or other types of pretrial judgments;
   5. Cases that went to trial, and of those that went to trial, how many were a bench trial and how many were a jury trial;
   6. Cases that were dismissed before trial at the plaintiff’s request; and
   7. Cases that resulted in judgment for plaintiff or for defendant.
2. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the following case summary data on COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. The number of cases filed each month; and
   2. The number of cases in which a fee waiver was granted.
3. Requires the Judicial Council to post the information gathered pursuant to 1), above, on its internet website in the format of a spreadsheet that may be downloaded once every quarter.
4. Provides that the bill, including the data collection provisions, apply commencing January 1, 2025.

Senate Amendments

1. Delay implementation of this bill until January 1, 2025.
2. Clarify the frequency of data reporting by the Judicial Council.

Governor’s Veto Message

This bill would, beginning January 1, 2025, require courts to report data to the Judicial Council related to unlawful detainer cases and COVID-19 rental debt in Small Claims Court.

I appreciate the author's long-standing commitment to increasing access and transparency in the justice system. That said, this bill could cost the state millions of dollars and must be considered as part of the annual budget process. In partnership with the Legislature, we enacted a budget that closed a shortfall of more than $30 billion through balanced solutions that avoided deep program cuts and protected education, health care, climate, public safety, and social service programs that are relied on by millions of Californians. This year, however, the Legislature sent me bills outside of this budget process that, if all enacted, would add nearly $19 billion of unaccounted costs in the budget, of which $11 billion would be ongoing.

With our state facing continuing economic risk and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications, such as this measure.

COMMENTS

As the lack of affordable housing in California continues to place significant upward pressure on rents, many Californians find themselves facing possible evictions through unlawful detainer actions. To address the growing need for legal representation for these vulnerable Californians, dozens of non-profits and some local governments have stepped up to provide legal assistance to renters. However, especially as a result of the growth in the use of remote court proceedings, it is becoming increasing difficult to determine where resources to assist renters are most needed. Accordingly, this bill seeks to better ascertain where unlawful detainer actions are occurring so that legal aid resources can be better allocated.

A brief history of California's Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act. In recognition of the need for indigent civil litigants in California to be represented by legal counsel, the Legislature enacted the bipartisan Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, AB 590 (Feuer), Chapter 457, Statutes of 2009, in order to provide legal representation to low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs.

A number of proposals were initially submitted for Shriver funding. Of these, the Judicial Council chose to fund 10 projects in seven counties (Kern, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Yolo), six of which focused on housing cases, three of which focused on child custody cases, and one which focused on guardianship and conservatorship cases. (See Judicial Council of California (July 2017) Evaluation of the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act (Evaluation).) Most of the projects began providing services to indigent parties in the fall of 2011. Each project was initially authorized for a three-year period, subject to renewal. Total initial available funding for all of the projects was $9.5 million per year. (See Judicial Council of California (August 2012) Fact Sheet: Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act.)

The pilot projects were operated by legal services nonprofit corporations, working in collaboration with local courts and other legal services providers in the community, in order to provide legal services for low-income Californians with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. The purpose of these services was to ensure that unrepresented parties in these important cases had meaningful access to justice; to guard against the involuntary waiver of rights, or disposition of cases by default; and to encourage the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, consistent with principles of judicial neutrality.

As originally enacted, the Shriver Act was scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2018. The sunset was lifted and the Act made permanent in mid-2016 with the passage of SB 843 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 33, Statutes of 2016. In 2019, three critical changes were made to the Shriver Act with the enactment of AB 330 (Gabriel), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2019. First, AB 330 increased fees charged to the public for certain court services by $15, with the additional funds directed to increased Shriver funding. That bill also expanded indigent access to family law services. As initially enacted, up to 20% of Shriver funding could be directed to the provision of representation in cases where a parent sought legal or physical custody of a child; post-AB 330, this 20% slice of funding can be directed to representation in any family law matter, albeit with a continuing priority placed on child custody cases. Finally, AB 330 required the Judicial Council to begin studying the effectiveness and continued need for the Shriver program in 2020, and to report its findings and recommendations every five years thereafter. A significant portion of the statewide funding for tenant representation in unlawful detainer proceedings is now being derived from the Shriver Act.

This bill will help ensure limited Shriver Act funds are directed to the counties with the greatest need. Despite the modifications to the Shriver Act adopted by AB 330, the Act still does not have sufficient funding to provide counsel for all Californians that need legal assistance in civil matters. Indeed, the State Bar of California notes that approximately 85% of Californians receive no, or inadequate, legal assistance for their civil legal needs. (R. Avalos et al., 2019 California Justice Gap Study: Executive Report at 7.) Recognizing the need to direct scare resources to areas in which they are most needed, this measure seek to generate data regarding unlawful detainer actions across California. The measure requires individual county courts to transmit to the Judicial Council data including the number of unlawful detainer cases filed each month, how many cases involved fee waivers, and how many defendants were actually represented by counsel. Additionally, the bill requires disclosures about small claims cases involving the COVID-19 rental relief provisions that the Legislature has adopted over the last several years. Although not directly allocating any resources, this proposal lays the groundwork for a more efficient allocation of Shriver Act funds by determining in which counties the greatest need exists.

Potential implementation difficulties. This bill requires the Judicial Council to collect a large amount of data and publish it on their website. Although the Judicial Council has not expressed any concerns regarding this data collection, experience has suggested that such a large-scale data operation is difficult for the courts. For example, a late-2022 report regarding issues in remote technology entirely omitted data for Los Angeles County, the state's largest.

According to the Author

Californians across the state are evicted from their homes without any recourse. Many end up living on the streets. This eviction crisis is one of the primary reasons that despite the tens of thousands of homeless people being permanently housed each year, the street count does not decrease. Without precise data to know the number of evictions during a period of time, where the evictions are happening and how those numbers are changing, policy makers and service providers cannot provide the best solutions to the problems.

To better develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to address this eviction crisis, local jurisdictions, legal service providers, and policymakers need more complete and uniform eviction court filing data.

Arguments in Support

This measure is sponsored by the County of Los Angeles and is supported by the City of Los Angeles. In support of this bill, the county writes:

AB 875 directs trial courts to provide the Judicial Council with specified anonymous data on unlawful detainer (UD) cases and the total number of cases filed. AB 875 also requires additional disaggregated data on case outcomes by ZIP Code.

The state's 58 county superior courts currently report aggregated UD case outcomes to the Judicial Council of California; however, reporting is inconsistent, and in some instances, it is not made public. As such, little is known about how landlords and tenants fare in courts, statewide. AB 875 would help to address gaps and inconsistencies in eviction-related data across the State, show the full scope of the eviction landscape, and enhance the budgeting, planning, and implementation of eviction prevention and defense programs across the State.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, one-time and ongoing costs in the millions to the courts and the Judicial Council to collect and submit information related to unlawful detainer cases and small claims cases concerning COVID-19 rental relief and make that information publicly available in a downloadable format (Trial Court Trust Fund)

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-0

YES: Maienschein, Essayli, Connolly, Dixon, Haney, Kalra, Pacheco, Papan, Reyes, Robert Rivas, Sanchez

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0-3

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Gallagher, Lackey

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Caballero

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0-3

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Gallagher, Lackey

UPDATED

VERSION: September 14, 2023

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002555

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 875

Author:(Gabriel)

As Amended Ver:September 1, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires California courts to report aggregated data regarding unlawful detainer actions.

Major Provisions

1. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the total number of each of the following data points for unlawful detainer cases, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. Cases filed each month;
   2. Cases in which defendants were represented by counsel at case closing;
   3. Cases in which a fee waiver was granted;
   4. Cases that were subject to default, stipulated, or other types of pretrial judgments;
   5. Cases that went to trial, and of those that went to trial, how many were a bench trial and how many were a jury trial;
   6. Cases that were dismissed before trial at the plaintiff’s request; and
   7. Cases that resulted in judgment for plaintiff or for defendant.
2. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the following case summary data on COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. The number of cases filed each month; and
   2. The number of cases in which a fee waiver was granted.
3. Requires the Judicial Council to post the information gathered pursuant to 1), above, on its internet website in the format of a spreadsheet that may be downloaded once every quarter.
4. Provides that the bill, including the data collection provisions, apply commencing January 1, 2025.

Senate Amendments

1. Delay implementation of this bill until January 1, 2025.
2. Clarify the frequency of data reporting by the Judicial Council.

COMMENTS

As the lack of affordable housing in California continues to place significant upward pressure on rents, many Californians find themselves facing possible evictions through unlawful detainer actions. To address the growing need for legal representation for these vulnerable Californians, dozens of non-profits and some local governments have stepped up to provide legal assistance to renters. However, especially as a result of the growth in the use of remote court proceedings, it is becoming increasing difficult to determine where resources to assist renters are most needed. Accordingly, this bill seeks to better ascertain where unlawful detainer actions are occurring so that legal aid resources can be better allocated.

A brief history of California's Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act. In recognition of the need for indigent civil litigants in California to be represented by legal counsel, the Legislature enacted the bipartisan Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, AB 590 (Feuer), Chapter 457, Statutes of 2009, in order to provide legal representation to low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs.

A number of proposals were initially submitted for Shriver funding. Of these, the Judicial Council chose to fund 10 projects in seven counties (Kern, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Yolo), six of which focused on housing cases, three of which focused on child custody cases, and one which focused on guardianship and conservatorship cases. (See Judicial Council of California (July 2017) Evaluation of the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act (Evaluation).) Most of the projects began providing services to indigent parties in the fall of 2011. Each project was initially authorized for a three-year period, subject to renewal. Total initial available funding for all of the projects was $9.5 million per year. (See Judicial Council of California (August 2012) Fact Sheet: Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act.)

The pilot projects were operated by legal services nonprofit corporations, working in collaboration with local courts and other legal services providers in the community, in order to provide legal services for low-income Californians with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. The purpose of these services was to ensure that unrepresented parties in these important cases had meaningful access to justice; to guard against the involuntary waiver of rights, or disposition of cases by default; and to encourage the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, consistent with principles of judicial neutrality.

As originally enacted, the Shriver Act was scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2018. The sunset was lifted and the Act made permanent in mid-2016 with the passage of SB 843 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 33, Statutes of 2016. In 2019, three critical changes were made to the Shriver Act with the enactment of AB 330 (Gabriel) Chapter 217, Statutes of 2019. First, AB 330 increased fees charged to the public for certain court services by $15, with the additional funds directed to increased Shriver funding. That bill also expanded indigent access to family law services. As initially enacted, up to 20% of Shriver funding could be directed to the provision of representation in cases where a parent sought legal or physical custody of a child; post-AB 330, this 20% slice of funding can be directed to representation in any family law matter, albeit with a continuing priority placed on child custody cases. Finally, AB 330 required the Judicial Council to begin studying the effectiveness and continued need for the Shriver program in 2020, and to report its findings and recommendations every five years thereafter. A significant portion of the statewide funding for tenant representation in unlawful detainer proceedings is now being derived from the Shriver Act.

This bill will help ensure limited Shriver Act funds are directed to the counties with the greatest need. Despite the modifications to the Shriver Act adopted by AB 330, the Act still does not have sufficient funding to provide counsel for all Californians that need legal assistance in civil matters. Indeed, the State Bar of California notes that approximately 85% of Californians receive no, or inadequate, legal assistance for their civil legal needs. (R. Avalos et al., 2019 California Justice Gap Study: Executive Report at 7.) Recognizing the need to direct scare resources to areas in which they are most needed, this measure seek to generate data regarding unlawful detainer actions across California. The measure requires individual county courts to transmit to the Judicial Council data including the number of unlawful detainer cases filed each month, how many cases involved fee waivers, and how many defendants were actually represented by counsel. Additionally, the bill requires disclosures about small claims cases involving the COVID-19 rental relief provisions that the Legislature has adopted over the last several years. Although not directly allocating any resources, this proposal lays the groundwork for a more efficient allocation of Shriver Act funds by determining in which counties the greatest need exists.

Potential implementation difficulties. This bill requires the Judicial Council to collect a large amount of data and publish it on their website. Although the Judicial Council has not expressed any concerns regarding this data collection, experience has suggested that such a large-scale data operation is difficult for the courts. For example, a late-2022 report regarding issues in remote technology entirely omitted data for Los Angeles County, the state's largest.

According to the Author

Californians across the state are evicted from their homes without any recourse. Many end up living on the streets. This eviction crisis is one of the primary reasons that despite the tens of thousands of homeless people being permanently housed each year, the street count does not decrease. Without precise data to know the number of evictions during a period of time, where the evictions are happening and how those numbers are changing, policy makers and service providers cannot provide the best solutions to the problems.

To better develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to address this eviction crisis, local jurisdictions, legal service providers, and policymakers need more complete and uniform eviction court filing data.

Arguments in Support

This measure is sponsored by the County of Los Angeles and is supported by the City of Los Angeles. In support of this bill, the county writes:

AB 875 directs trial courts to provide the Judicial Council with specified anonymous data on unlawful detainer (UD) cases and the total number of cases filed. AB 875 also requires additional disaggregated data on case outcomes by ZIP Code.

The state's 58 county superior courts currently report aggregated UD case outcomes to the Judicial Council of California; however, reporting is inconsistent, and in some instances, it is not made public. As such, little is known about how landlords and tenants fare in courts, statewide. AB 875 would help to address gaps and inconsistencies in eviction-related data across the State, show the full scope of the eviction landscape, and enhance the budgeting, planning, and implementation of eviction prevention and defense programs across the State.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, one-time and ongoing costs in the millions to the courts and the Judicial Council to collect and submit information related to unlawful detainer cases and small claims cases concerning COVID-19 rental relief and make that information publicly available in a downloadable format (Trial Court Trust Fund).

VOTES:

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-0

YES: Maienschein, Essayli, Connolly, Dixon, Haney, Kalra, Pacheco, Papan, Reyes, Robert Rivas, Sanchez

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0-3

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Gallagher, Lackey

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Caballero

UPDATED

VERSION: September 1, 2023

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0001698

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 875

Author: Gabriel (D)

Amended: 9/1/23 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/27/23

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Min, Niello, Stern, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/1/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/30/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Courts: data reporting

SOURCE: County of Los Angeles

DIGEST:

This bill requires individual county courts to transmit to the Judicial Council specified data, including the number of unlawful detainer cases filed each month on and after January 1, 2025, how many cases involved fee waivers, and how many defendants were actually represented by counsel, and requires the Judicial Council to post this information in a publicly available electronic spreadsheet that may be downloaded from its internet website. This bill also requires disclosures about small claims cases involving the COVID-19 rental relief provisions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the Judicial Council to develop one or more pilot projects to test the concept of “Civil Gideon” by providing legal representation for persons at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level who require legal services in civil matters involving housing, domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, probate conservatorships, guardianships of the person, elder abuse, or actions by a parent to obtain sole legal or physical custody of a child. (Gov. Code § 68651(b)(1).)
2. Establishes summary civil proceedings by which landlords may seek a court order for the eviction of tenants from their rental property, generally referred to as unlawful detainer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1159 et seq.)
3. Provides that the provisions of the unlawful detainer law are subject to the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020. (Ibid.)
4. Specifies, as a part of the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act, temporary timelines and procedures for unlawful detainer actions to provide relief to tenants who lost income as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic through 2025. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1179.1 et seq.)

This bill:

1. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the total number of each of the following data points for unlawful detainer cases, monthly, aggregated by ZIP Code for unlawful detainer cases filed on or after January 1, 2025:
   1. cases filed each month;
   2. cases in which defendants were represented by counsel at case closing;
   3. cases in which a fee waiver was granted;
   4. cases that were subject to default, stipulated, or other types of pretrial judgments;
   5. cases that went to trial, and of those that went to trial, how many were a bench trial and how many were a jury trial;
   6. cases that were dismissed before trial at the plaintiff’s request; and
   7. cases that resulted in judgment for the plaintiff or for the defendant.
2. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the following case summary data on COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. The number of cases filed each month; and
   2. The number of cases in which a fee waiver was granted.
3. Requires the Judicial Council, every four months, to post the information gathered pursuant to 1) above, on its internet website in the format of a spreadsheet that may be downloaded.

Comments

In 2009, then-Assemblymember, now-Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer proposed that California embark on a project to put the Civil Gideon concept to the test. He introduced AB 590 (Chapter 457, Statutes of 2009), the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, so named in honor of then-California First Lady Maria Shriver’s father, who was a major proponent of legal aid. AB 590 passed both houses of the Legislature on a bipartisan basis and was signed by then-Governor Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009.

The Shriver Project is funded by a $25 fee in various court filing fees and it is administered by the Judicial Council. Pursuant to the Act, legal aid agencies, in partnership with their local county courts, must present proposals to the Judicial Council. The proposals must focus on at least one of the civil matters identified as having such profound impact on litigants’ lives that legal counsel should be appointed: housing-related matters, domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, probate conservatorships, guardianships of the person, elder abuse, or actions by a parent to obtain sole legal or physical custody of a child. In addition, the projects are supposed to involve implementation of court procedures, personnel, training, and case management and administration methods that reflect best practices to ensure unrepresented parties in those cases have meaningful access to justice, and to guard against the involuntary waiver of those rights or their disposition by default.

In its inaugural round of funding, the Judicial Council selected 10 pilot programs for the Shriver Project. They included six housing-related legal services in Kern, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Yolo counties; three child custody related legal services in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco counties; and a probate guardianship program in Santa Barbara County. Each project was initially authorized for a three-year period, subject to renewal, after which, the Project was scheduled to sunset.^[1] The Judicial Council was required to begun studying the effectiveness and continued need for the Shriver program in 2020, and to report its findings and recommendations every five years thereafter. A significant portion of the statewide funding for tenant representation in unlawful detainer proceedings is now being derived from the Shriver Act.

In California, almost all involuntary residential evictions must take place through the judicial process. Landlords may not simply kick a tenant out on their own. (Civ. Code § 789.3.) Instead, landlords must request an order from a judge. If, after giving the tenant an opportunity to respond, the judge agrees that the landlord is entitled to reclaim the rental property, the judge will issue a writ of possession in the landlord’s favor. Sheriff’s deputies then execute the writ of possession. First, they post a notice giving the tenants five days’ advance warning of the impending lockout. Then, on the appointed day, the sheriff deputies will physically remove the tenants from the property, if they have not left already, and standby while the locks are changed. These judicial proceedings are known as unlawful detainers and they are governed by their own special statutes, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1159 to 1179(a).

As part of its response to the financial fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, California enacted policies designed to prevent tenant households from losing their homes if they fell behind on rent. At their core, those policies now consist of two components: (1) legal protections against eviction for nonpayment of rent; and (2) an emergency rental assistance program (ERAP) to compensate landlords for that unpaid rent. Since October 2021, these two components have been linked: landlords may proceed to evict tenants who have failed to pay rent, but only after properly demonstrating to the court that they unsuccessfully attempted to obtain emergency rental assistance to cover the debt owed to them.

In recognition that the need for legal assistance in civil matters outweighs the available funding to provide such legal assistance, this bill seeks to obtain data regarding unlawful detainer cases around the state with the hope that it can assist in identifying areas where these scarce resources may be needed most. This bill requires individual county courts to transmit to the Judicial Council specified data, including the number of unlawful detainer cases filed each month on and after January 1, 2025, how many cases involved fee waivers, and how many defendants were actually represented by counsel. Additionally, this bill requires disclosures about small claims cases involving the COVID-19 rental relief provisions that the Legislature has adopted over the last several years.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, one-time and ongoing costs in the millions to the courts and the Judicial Council to collect and submit information related to unlawful detainer cases and small claims cases concerning COVID-19 rental relief and make that information publicly available in a downloadable format (Trial Court Trust Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/3/23)

County of Los Angeles (source)

California Low-Income Consumer Coalition

Centro Legal de la Raza

City of San Jose

County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors

County of Santa Clara

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority

The People Concern

Western Center on Law & Poverty

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/3/23)

Judicial Council of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

Californians across the state are evicted from their homes without any recourse. Many end up living on the streets. This eviction crisis is one of the primary reasons that despite the tens of thousands of homeless people being permanently housed each year, the street count does not decrease. Without precise data to know the number of evictions during a period of time, where the evictions are happening and how those numbers are changing, policy makers and service providers cannot provide the best solutions to the problems.

To better develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to address this eviction crisis, local jurisdictions, legal service providers, and policymakers need more complete and uniform eviction court filing data.

The County of Los Angeles writes in support:

The state’s 58 county superior courts currently report aggregated UD case outcomes to the Judicial Council of California; however, reporting is inconsistent, and in some instances, it is not made public. As such, little is known about how landlords and tenants fare in courts, statewide. AB 875 would help to address gaps and inconsistencies in eviction-related data across the State, show the full scope of the eviction landscape, and enhance the budgeting, planning, and implementation of eviction prevention and defense programs across the State.

More specific data about cases and the case outcomes will also shed light on displacement trends in local communities and assist in keeping members of our vulnerable populations in their homes.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Judicial Council of California writes in opposition unless amended stating:

In order to gather the required data points, all 58 superior courts would need to hire additional staff, potentially including research attorneys, to review unlawful detainer cases and pull out the individual data points, where they may be available within case notes or filing information. As AB 875 does not include any timeframes for data collection, it is difficult to determine the full scope of the workload for the courts. If data collection is only required from the bill’s operative date of January 1, 2024, there will be significant ongoing workload costs associated with reviewing each unlawful detainer case that is filed. For reference, the courts show historical averages of approximately 140,000 unlawful detainer cases being filed statewide, each year. For a review of each of those cases, the courts anticipate needing 20 full time staff to review, collect, and enter the data into a system for reporting. The Judicial Council will also require significant funding for information technology staff to develop a system to collect and then store the data points for publishing to the council’s website. To allow time to set up a statewide system that can interact with the various case management systems in use throughout the state’s courts, the council requires an amendment for a delayed implementation date.

The courts also require clarification on, or a potential amendment to remove, the inclusion of COVID-19 specific data. If this is meant to be an ongoing data collection requirement, the inclusion of COVID-19 related data creates confusion as the numbers of COVID-related unlawful detainer cases are steadily declining.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/30/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Essayli, Gallagher, Lackey

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

9/4/23 9:19:23

**** END ****

1. Fact Sheet: Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act (Aug. 2012) Judicial Council of California https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB_XXII_VB_2.pdf (as of Jun. 1, 2019). ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 875 (Gabriel) - Courts: data reporting

Bill Summary:

AB 875 would require individual county courts to report specified information to the Judicial Council (JCC) regarding unlawful detainer cases and COVID-19 rental debt in Small Claims Court. The bill would also require the JCC to post specified information on its internet website.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on September 1, 2023

Fiscal Impact:

One-time and ongoing costs in the millions to the courts and the JCC to collect and submit information related to unlawful detainer cases and small claims cases concerning COVID-19 rental relief and make that information publicly available in a downloadable format (Trial Court Trust Fund).

Author Amendments:

• Require the JCC to post the information received pursuant to these provisions every four months.
• Delay implementation until January 1, 2025 and specify that the data reporting is prospective as of that date.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 875 (Gabriel) - Courts: data reporting

Bill Summary:

AB 875 would require individual county courts to report specified information to the Judicial Council (JCC) regarding unlawful detainer cases and COVID-19 rental debt in Small Claims Court. The bill would also require the JCC to post specified information on its internet website.

Fiscal Impact:

One-time and ongoing costs in the millions to the courts and the JCC to collect and submit information related to unlawful detainer cases and small claims cases concerning COVID-19 rental relief and make that information publicly available in a downloadable format (Trial Court Trust Fund).

Background:

In California, almost all involuntary residential evictions must take place through the judicial process. Landlords may not simply kick a tenant out on their own. Instead, landlords must request an order from a judge. If, after giving the tenant an opportunity to respond, the judge agrees that the landlord is entitled to reclaim the rental property, the judge will issue a writ of possession in the landlord’s favor. Sheriff’s deputies then execute the writ of possession. First, they post a notice giving the tenants five days’ advance warning of the impending lockout. Then, on the appointed day, the sheriff deputies will physically remove the tenants from the property, if they have not left already, and standby while the locks are changed. These judicial proceedings are known as unlawful detainer case and they are governed by their own special statutes.

As part of its response to the financial fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, California enacted policies designed to prevent tenant households from losing their homes if they fell behind on rent. At their core, those policies now consist of two components: (1) legal protections against eviction for nonpayment of rent; and (2) an emergency rental assistance program (ERAP) to compensate landlords for that unpaid rent. Since October 2021, these two components have been linked: landlords may proceed to evict tenants who have failed to pay rent, but only after properly demonstrating to the court that they unsuccessfully attempted to obtain emergency rental assistance to cover the debt owed to them.

Proposed Law:

• Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the total number of each of the following data points for unlawful detainer cases, aggregated by ZIP Code:
  • cases filed each month;
  • cases in which defendants were represented by counsel at case closing;
  • cases in which a fee waiver was granted;
  • cases that were subject to default, stipulated, or other types of pretrial judgments;
  • cases that went to trial, and of those that went to trial, how many were a bench trial and how many were a jury trial;
  • cases that were dismissed before trial at the plaintiff’s request; and
  • cases that resulted in judgment for the plaintiff or for the defendant.
    
• Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the following case summary data on COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court, aggregated by ZIP Code:
  • the number of cases filed each month; and
  • the number of cases in which a fee waiver was granted.
    
• Requires the Judicial Council to post the information on its internet website in the format of a spreadsheet that may be downloaded.

Related Legislation:

AB 2271 (Gabriel, 2020), among other things, would have required courts to provide the Judicial Council with certain information regarding unlawful detainer cases. AB 2271 was never heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Staff Comments:

The JCC estimates one-time costs of $6.1 million and ongoing annual costs of $5.4 million to implement and administer AB 875. It further reports that it will need to create a new data gathering system, train court staff on its use, compile and validate the submitted statewide data, and post the aggregated data by ZIP code on a monthly basis. Until the new system is fully implemented, the courts will require significant personnel resources throughout the state to conduct the manual review of unlawful detainer case files, as well as pull the data points that are currently available in existing case management systems, and manually submit the information to the Judicial Council for further validation and aggregation. Once the system is implemented, components of the process will become more streamlined but will still require additional court resources to perform the case reviews and enter the data into the system.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 875 (Author:Gabriel)

Version: February 14, 2023

Hearing Date: June 27, 2023

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Courts: data reporting

DIGEST

This bill requires individual county courts to transmit to the Judicial Council specified data, including the number of unlawful detainer cases filed each month, how many cases involved fee waivers, and how many defendants were actually represented by counsel, and requires the Judicial Council to post this information in a publicly available electronic spreadsheet that may be downloaded from its internet website. The bill also requires disclosures about small claims cases involving the COVID-19 rental relief provisions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Shriver Act provides grants to fund pilot programs designed to ensure that legal counsel is available for people dealing with life-altering civil matters in court, including for unlawful detainer cases. A significant portion of statewide funding for tenant representation in unlawful detainer proceedings is now being derived from the Shriver Act. This bill seeks to generate data regarding unlawful detainer cases in the state in order to assist in identifying areas where these scarce resources may be needed most.

The bill is sponsored by the County of Los Angeles and supported by various organizations. The bill is opposed by the Judicial Council of California.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the Judicial Council to develop one or more pilot projects to test the concept of “Civil Gideon” by providing legal representation for persons at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level who require legal services in civil matters involving housing, domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, probate conservatorships, guardianships of the person, elder abuse, or actions by a parent to obtain sole legal or physical custody of a child. (Gov. Code § 68651(b)(1).)
2. Establishes summary civil proceedings by which landlords may seek a court order for the eviction of tenants from their rental property, generally referred to as unlawful detainer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1159 et seq.)
3. Provides that the provisions of the unlawful detainer law are subject to the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020. (Ibid.)
4. Specifies, as a part of the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act, temporary timelines and procedures for unlawful detainer actions to provide relief to tenants who lost income as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic through 2025. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1179.1 et seq.)

This bill:

1. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the total number of each of the following data points for unlawful detainer cases, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. cases filed each month;
   2. cases in which defendants were represented by counsel at case closing;
   3. cases in which a fee waiver was granted;
   4. cases that were subject to default, stipulated, or other types of pretrial judgments;
   5. cases that went to trial, and of those that went to trial, how many were a bench trial and how many were a jury trial;
   6. cases that were dismissed before trial at the plaintiff’s request; and
   7. cases that resulted in judgment for the plaintiff or for the defendant.
2. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the following case summary data on COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. the number of cases filed each month; and
   2. the number of cases in which a fee waiver was granted.
3. Requires the Judicial Council to post the information gathered pursuant to 1), above, on its internet website in the format of a spreadsheet that may be downloaded.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

Californians across the state are evicted from their homes without any recourse. Many end up living on the streets. This eviction crisis is one of the primary reasons that despite the tens of thousands of homeless people being permanently housed each year, the street count does not decrease. Without precise data to know the number of evictions during a period of time, where the evictions are happening and how those numbers are changing, policy makers and service providers cannot provide the best solutions to the problems.

To better develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to address this eviction crisis, local jurisdictions, legal service providers, and policymakers need more complete and uniform eviction court filing data.

1. Background
   1. Shriver Act

In 2009, then-Assemblymember, now-Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer proposed that California embark on a project to put the Civil Gideon concept to the test. He introduced AB 590 (Ch. 457, Stats. 2009), the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, so named in honor of then-California First Lady Maria Shriver’s father, who was a major proponent of legal aid. AB 590 passed both houses of the Legislature on a bipartisan basis and was signed by then-Governor Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009.

The Shriver Project is funded by a $25 fee in various court filing fees and it is administered by the Judicial Council. Pursuant to the Act, legal aid agencies, in partnership with their local county courts, must present proposals to the Judicial Council. The proposals must focus on at least one of the civil matters identified as having such profound impact on litigants’ lives that legal counsel should be appointed: housing-related matters, domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, probate conservatorships, guardianships of the person, elder abuse, or actions by a parent to obtain sole legal or physical custody of a child. In addition, the projects are supposed to involve implementation of court procedures, personnel, training, and case management and administration methods that reflect best practices to ensure unrepresented parties in those cases have meaningful access to justice, and to guard against the involuntary waiver of those rights or their disposition by default.

In its inaugural round of funding, the Judicial Council selected 10 pilot programs for the Shriver Project. They included six housing-related legal services in Kern, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Yolo counties; three child custody related legal services in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco counties; and a probate guardianship program in Santa Barbara County. Each project was initially authorized for a three-year period, subject to renewal, after which, the Project was scheduled to sunset.^[1] The Judicial Council was required to begun studying the effectiveness and continued need for the Shriver program in 2020, and to report its findings and recommendations every five years thereafter. A significant portion of the statewide funding for tenant representation in unlawful detainer proceedings is now being derived from the Shriver Act.

• 1. Unlawful detainer

In California, almost all involuntary residential evictions must take place through the judicial process. Landlords may not simply kick a tenant out on their own. (Civ. Code § 789.3.) Instead, landlords must request an order from a judge. If, after giving the tenant an opportunity to respond, the judge agrees that the landlord is entitled to reclaim the rental property, the judge will issue a writ of possession in the landlord’s favor. Sheriff’s deputies then execute the writ of possession. First, they post a notice giving the tenants five days’ advance warning of the impending lockout. Then, on the appointed day, the sheriff deputies will physically remove the tenants from the property, if they have not left already, and standby while the locks are changed. These judicial proceedings are known as unlawful detainers and they are governed by their own special statutes, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1159 to 1179(a).

• 1. COVID-19 rental protections

As part of its response to the financial fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, California enacted policies designed to prevent tenant households from losing their homes if they fell behind on rent. At their core, those policies now consist of two components: (1) legal protections against eviction for nonpayment of rent; and (2) an emergency rental assistance program (ERAP) to compensate landlords for that unpaid rent. Since October 2021, these two components have been linked: landlords may proceed to evict tenants who have failed to pay rent, but only after properly demonstrating to the court that they unsuccessfully attempted to obtain emergency rental assistance to cover the debt owed to them.

1. This bill requires reporting to the Judicial Council on information regarding unlawful detainer cases

In recognition that the need for legal assistance in civil matters outweighs the available funding to provide such legal assistance, this bill seeks to obtain data regarding unlawful detainer cases around the state with the hope that it can assist in identifying areas where these scarce resources may be needed most. The bill requires individual county courts to transmit to the Judicial Council specified data, including the number of unlawful detainer cases filed each month, how many cases involved fee waivers, and how many defendants were actually represented by counsel. Additionally, the bill requires disclosures about small claims cases involving the COVID-19 rental relief provisions that the Legislature has adopted over the last several years.

1. Statements in support

The County of Los Angeles, a sponsor of the bill, writes:

The state’s 58 county superior courts currently report aggregated UD case outcomes to the Judicial Council of California; however, reporting is inconsistent, and in some instances, it is not made public. As such, little is known about how landlords and tenants fare in courts, statewide. AB 875 would help to address gaps and inconsistencies in eviction-related data across the State, show the full scope of the eviction landscape, and enhance the budgeting, planning, and implementation of eviction prevention and defense programs across the State.

More specific data about cases and the case outcomes will also shed light on displacement trends in local communities and assist in keeping members of our vulnerable populations in their homes.

1. Statements in opposition

The Judicial Council of California writes in opposition unless amended stating:

In order to gather the required data points, all 58 superior courts would need to hire additional staff, potentially including research attorneys, to review unlawful detainer cases and pull out the individual data points, where they may be available within case notes or filing information. As AB 875 does not include any timeframes for data collection, it is difficult to determine the full scope of the workload for the courts. If data collection is only required from the bill’s operative date of January 1, 2024, there will be significant ongoing workload costs associated with reviewing each unlawful detainer case that is filed. For reference, the courts show historical averages of approximately 140,000 unlawful detainer cases being filed statewide, each year. For a review of each of those cases, the courts anticipate needing 20 full time staff to review, collect, and enter the data into a system for reporting. The Judicial Council will also require significant funding for information technology staff to develop a system to collect and then store the data points for publishing to the council’s website. To allow time to set up a statewide system that can interact with the various case management systems in use throughout the state’s courts, the council requires an amendment for a delayed implementation date.

The courts also require clarification on, or a potential amendment to remove, the inclusion of COVID-19 specific data. If this is meant to be an ongoing data collection requirement, the inclusion of COVID-19 related data creates confusion as the numbers of COVID-related unlawful detainer cases are steadily declining.

SUPPORT

County of Los Angeles (sponsor)
California Low-Income Consumer Coalition

County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority

The People Concern

Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inc.

OPPOSITION

Judicial Council of California

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation:

SB 843 (Committee on Budget, Ch. 33, Stats. 2016) lifted the sunset date from the Shriver Civil Counsel Act statute, thus extending the Project indefinitely.

AB 2271 (Gabriel, 2020), among other things, would have required courts to provide the Judicial Council with certain information regarding unlawful detainer cases. AB 2271 was never set for a hearing in this Committee.

AB 590 (Feuer, Ch. 457, Stats. 2009) enacted the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act which raised fees on certain court filings and directed the proceeds to fund a series of grants for pilot projects to test the impact of providing legal representation to low-income individuals in probate conservatorship, eviction, and child custody matters.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 77, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)
**************

1. Fact Sheet: Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act (Aug. 2012) Judicial Council of California https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB_XXII_VB_2.pdf (as of Jun. 1, 2019). ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 875

Author:(Gabriel)

As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires California courts to report aggregated data regarding unlawful detainer actions.

Major Provisions

1. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the total number of each of the following data points for unlawful detainer cases, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. Cases filed each month;
   2. Cases in which defendants were represented by counsel at case closing;
   3. Cases in which a fee waiver was granted;
   4. Cases that were subject to default, stipulated, or other types of pretrial judgments;
   5. Cases that went to trial, and of those that went to trial, how many were a bench trial and how many were a jury trial;
   6. Cases that were dismissed before trial at the plaintiff’s request; and
   7. Cases that resulted in judgment for plaintiff or for defendant.
2. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the following case summary data on COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. The number of cases filed each month; and
   2. The number of cases in which a fee waiver was granted.
3. Requires the Judicial Council to post the information gathered pursuant to 1), above, on its internet website in the format of a spreadsheet that may be downloaded.

COMMENTS

As the lack of affordable housing in California continues to place significant upward pressure on rents, many Californians find themselves facing possible evictions through unlawful detainer actions. To address the growing need for legal representation for these vulnerable Californians, dozens of non-profits and some local governments have stepped up to provide legal assistance to renters. However, especially as a result of the growth in the use of remote court proceedings, it is becoming increasing difficult to determine where resources to assist renters are most needed. Accordingly, this bill seeks to better ascertain where unlawful detainer actions are occurring so that legal aid resources can be better allocated.

A brief history of California's Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act. In recognition of the need for indigent civil litigants in California to be represented by legal counsel, the Legislature enacted the bipartisan Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, AB 590 (Feuer), Chapter 457, Statutes of 2009, in order to provide legal representation to low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs.

A number of proposals were initially submitted for Shriver funding. Of these, the Judicial Council chose to fund 10 projects in seven counties (Kern, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Yolo), six of which focused on housing cases, three of which focused on child custody cases, and one which focused on guardianship and conservatorship cases. (See Judicial Council of California (July 2017) Evaluation of the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act (Evaluation).) Most of the projects began providing services to indigent parties in the fall of 2011. Each project was initially authorized for a three-year period, subject to renewal. Total initial available funding for all of the projects was $9.5 million per year. (See Judicial Council of California (August 2012) Fact Sheet: Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act.)

The pilot projects were operated by legal services nonprofit corporations, working in collaboration with local courts and other legal services providers in the community, in order to provide legal services for low-income Californians with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. The purpose of these services was to ensure that unrepresented parties in these important cases had meaningful access to justice; to guard against the involuntary waiver of rights, or disposition of cases by default; and to encourage the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, consistent with principles of judicial neutrality.

As originally enacted, the Shriver Act was scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2018. The sunset was lifted and the Act made permanent in mid-2016 with the passage of SB 843 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 33, Statutes of 2016. In 2019, three critical changes were made to the Shriver Act with the enactment of AB 330 (Gabriel) Chapter 217, Statutes. 2019. First, AB 330 increased fees charged to the public for certain court services by $15, with the additional funds directed to increased Shriver funding. That bill also expanded indigent access to family law services. As initially enacted, up to 20% of Shriver funding could be directed to the provision of representation in cases where a parent sought legal or physical custody of a child; post-AB 330, this 20% slice of funding can be directed to representation in any family law matter, albeit with a continuing priority placed on child custody cases. Finally, AB 330 required the Judicial Council to begin studying the effectiveness and continued need for the Shriver program in 2020, and to report its findings and recommendations every five years thereafter. A significant portion of the statewide funding for tenant representation in unlawful detainer proceedings is now being derived from the Shriver Act.

This bill will help ensure limited Shriver Act funds are directed to the counties with the greatest need. Despite the modifications to the Shriver Act adopted by AB 330, the Act still does not have sufficient funding to provide counsel for all Californians that need legal assistance in civil matters. Indeed, the State Bar of California notes that approximately 85% of Californians receive no, or inadequate, legal assistance for their civil legal needs. (R. Avalos et al., 2019 California Justice Gap Study: Executive Report at 7.) Recognizing the need to direct scare resources to areas in which they are most needed, this measure seek to generate data regarding unlawful detainer actions across California. The measure requires individual county courts to transmit to the Judicial Council data including the number of unlawful detainer cases filed each month, how many cases involved fee waivers, and how many defendants were actually represented by counsel. Additionally, the bill requires disclosures about small claims cases involving the COVID-19 rental relief provisions that the Legislature has adopted over the last several years. Although not directly allocating any resources, this proposal lays the groundwork for a more efficient allocation of Shriver Act funds by determining in which counties the greatest need exists.

Potential implementation difficulties. This bill requires the Judicial Council to collect a large amount of data and publish it on their website. Although the Judicial Council has not expressed any concerns regarding this data collection, experience has suggested that such a large-scale data operation is difficult for the courts. For example, a late-2022 report regarding issues in remote technology entirely omitted data for Los Angeles County, the state's largest.

According to the Author

Californians across the state are evicted from their homes without any recourse. Many end up living on the streets. This eviction crisis is one of the primary reasons that despite the tens of thousands of homeless people being permanently housed each year, the street count does not decrease. Without precise data to know the number of evictions during a period of time, where the evictions are happening and how those numbers are changing, policy makers and service providers cannot provide the best solutions to the problems.

To better develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to address this eviction crisis, local jurisdictions, legal service providers, and policymakers need more complete and uniform eviction court filing data.

Arguments in Support

This measure is sponsored by the County of Los Angeles and is supported by the City of Los Angeles. In support of this bill, the county writes:

AB 875 directs trial courts to provide the Judicial Council with specified anonymous data on unlawful detainer (UD) cases and the total number of cases filed. AB 875 also requires additional disaggregated data on case outcomes by ZIP Code.

The state's 58 county superior courts currently report aggregated UD case outcomes to the Judicial Council of California; however, reporting is inconsistent, and in some instances, it is not made public. As such, little is known about how landlords and tenants fare in courts, statewide. AB 875 would help to address gaps and inconsistencies in eviction-related data across the State, show the full scope of the eviction landscape, and enhance the budgeting, planning, and implementation of eviction prevention and defense programs across the State.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations analysis, costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount, in excess of $150,000. Judicial Council reports that complying with this measure would require a manual case review of all the unlawful detainer cases in the state, which may have a significant impact on judicial branch workload. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. If funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it may result in delays and prioritization of court cases.

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-0

YES: Maienschein, Essayli, Connolly, Dixon, Haney, Kalra, Pacheco, Papan, Reyes, Robert Rivas, Sanchez

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: February 14, 2023

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000435

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 875

Author:(Gabriel) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires each superior court to report aggregated data about unlawful detainer actions to the Judicial Council and requires Judicial Council to post the data on its internet website. The bill also requires superior courts to report case summary data to the Judicial Council about COVID-19 rental debt in small claims court.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount, in excess of $150,000. Judicial Council reports that complying with this measure would require a manual case review of all the unlawful detainer cases in the state, which may have a significant impact on judicial branch workload. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. If funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, it may result in delays and prioritization of court cases.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author:

Californians across the state are evicted from their homes without any recourse. Many end up living on the streets. This eviction crisis is one of the primary reasons that despite the tens of thousands of homeless people being permanently housed each year, the street count does not decrease. Without precise data to know the number of evictions during a period of time, where the evictions are happening and how those numbers are changing, policy makers and service providers cannot provide the best solutions to the problems. To better develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to address this eviction crisis, local jurisdictions, legal service providers, and policymakers need more complete and uniform eviction court filing data.

1. Background. Unlawful detainer, more commonly known as eviction, is the legal process by which a landlord can force a tenant to permanently move out of a rental property. A landlord must file a complaint in a superior court alleging that the tenant is staying on the property unlawfully. If the court issues a judgment against the tenant, a sheriff will post and enforce a notice to vacate the property. In light of the ongoing housing crisis, cities and counties have voiced a critical need for access to data relating to unlawful detainer to help inform their budgeting, planning, and implementation of eviction prevention and other housing programs and legal defense programs. This bill would require superior courts to report certain aggregated data about unlawful detainer actions (including the number of cases filed, cases that went to trial, and cases in which a defendant was represented by counsel) to Judicial Council, which must post the information on its internet website.
2. Argument in Support. According to the Legal Aid Society of San Diego:

AB 875 will require courts to provide the number of unlawful detainer cases filed each month aggregated by zip code, as well as the case outcomes, such as the number of settlements, dismissals, and trials. Better and more complete data will help local jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations better understand displacement in their communities and will help the state direct scarce resources, monitor their impact, and track compliance with important tenant protection and housing measures passed by the Legislature in recent years. Such data will enable the State and local jurisdictions to craft targeted, responsive policies to reduce homelessness, stabilize communities, and prevent displacement; and these policies will be more critical than ever following the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting increased housing insecurity.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 21, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Brian Maienschein, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 875

Author:(Gabriel) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2023

proposed consent

SUBJECT: Courts: data reporting

KEY ISSUE: should California trial courts be required to submit specified aggregate data to the judicial council regarding unlawful detainer cases; and should that data subsequently be made available to the public?

SYNOPSIS

This straightforward and non-controversial measure will improve data collection and reporting regarding unlawful detainer cases across California’s Superior Courts. In the midst of the state’s ongoing housing shortage and eviction crisis, this bill seeks to ensure that scarce legal aid resources can be directed to areas in which they will provide the greatest benefit. This modest measure would collect, among other data points, information regarding the number of unlawful detainer cases filed each month, cases in which renters have legal counsel, and cases in which a defendant was granted a fee waiver. This data would then be aggregated by zip code and published by the Judicial Council of California. The bill also requires the collection of specified data related to COVID-19 rent relief proceedings.

This bill is sponsored by the County of Los Angeles and supported by the City of Los Angeles. Both note that there is no existing mechanism for tracking trends in unlawful detainer actions and given the scarcity of funding for legal counsel for indigent litigants this data is critical to properly allocating resources. As currently in print this bill has no known opposition.

SUMMARY: Requires California courts to report aggregated data regarding unlawful detainer actions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the total number of each of the following data points for unlawful detainer cases, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. Cases filed each month;
   2. Cases in which defendants were represented by counsel at case closing;
   3. Cases in which a fee waiver was granted;
   4. Cases that were subject to default, stipulated, or other types of pretrial judgments;
   5. Cases that went to trial, and of those that went to trial, how many were a bench trial and how many were a jury trial;
   6. Cases that were dismissed before trial at the plaintiff’s request; and
   7. Cases that resulted in judgment for plaintiff or for defendant.
2. Requires each superior court to report to the Judicial Council the following case summary data on COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court, aggregated by ZIP Code:
   1. The number of cases filed each month; and
   2. The number of cases in which a fee waiver was granted.
3. Requires the Judicial Council to post the information gathered pursuant to 1) on its internet website in the format of a spreadsheet that may be downloaded.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act which requires that civil counsel be appointed to represent low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs in those specified courts selected by the Judicial Council including housing-related matters, domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, probate conservatorships, guardianships of the person, elder abuse, or actions by a parent to obtain legal or physical custody of a child. (Government Code Section 68650 et seq.)
2. Provides that the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act is to be a partnership between the court and a qualified legal services project who is to serve as the lead agency for case assessment and direction, and other legal services providers in the community who are able to provide the services for the program. (Government Code Section 68651 (b)(4).)
3. Requires the Judicial Council to conduct a study to demonstrate the effectiveness and continued need for the programs established by the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act and report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature every five years, commencing June 1, 2020. (Government Code Section 68651 (c).)
4. Permits every court to make rules for its own government and the government of its officers not inconsistent with existing laws or with the rules adopted and prescribed by the Judicial Council. (Government Code Section 68070 (a).)
5. Provides that a tenant of real property, for a term less than life, or the executor or administrator of the tenant’s estate, is guilty of unlawful detainer for any of the following acts:
   1. Continued possession, in person or by subtenant, of the property, or any part thereof, after the expiration of the term for which it is let to the tenant; provided the expiration is of a nondefault nature however brought about without the permission of the landlord, or the successor in estate of the landlord;
   2. Continued possession, in person or by subtenant, without the permission of the landlord, or the successor in estate of the landlord, if applicable, after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days’ notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays;
   3. Assigning or subletting or committing waste upon the demised premises, contrary to the conditions or covenants of the lease, or maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance upon the demised premises or using the premises for an unlawful purpose; and
   4. Failing to deliver possession at the time specified in that written notice, without the permission of the landlord, or the successor in estate of the landlord, after the tenant properly provided written notice to the landlord of the tenant’s intention to terminate the hiring of the real property, or makes a written offer to surrender which is accepted in writing by the landlord. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161.)
6. Provides that the provisions of the unlawful detainer law described in 5) are subject to the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020. (Ibid.)
7. Specifies, as a part of the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act, temporary timelines and procedures for unlawful detainer actions to provide relief to tenants who lost income as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic through 2025. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1179.1 et seq.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: As the lack of affordable housing in California continues to place significant upward pressure on rents, many Californians find themselves facing possible evictions through unlawful detainer actions. To address the growing need for legal representation for these vulnerable Californians, dozens of non-profits and some local governments have stepped up to provide legal assistance to renters. However, especially as a result of the growth in the use of remote court proceedings, it is becoming increasing difficult to determine where resources to assist renters are most needed. Accordingly, this bill seeks to better ascertain where unlawful detainer actions are occurring so that legal aid resources can be better allocated. In support of the bill, the author states:

Californians across the state are evicted from their homes without any recourse. Many end up living on the streets. This eviction crisis is one of the primary reasons that despite the tens of thousands of homeless people being permanently housed each year, the street count does not decrease. Without precise data to know the number of evictions during a period of time, where the evictions are happening and how those numbers are changing, policy makers and service providers cannot provide the best solutions to the problems.

To better develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to address this eviction crisis, local jurisdictions, legal service providers, and policymakers need more complete and uniform eviction court filing data.

A brief history of California’s Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act. In recognition of the need for indigent civil litigants in California to be represented by legal counsel, the Legislature enacted the bipartisan Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, AB 590 (Feuer) Chap. 457, Stats. 2009, in order to provide legal representation to low-income parties in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs.

A number of proposals were initially submitted for Shriver funding. Of these, the Judicial Council chose to fund ten projects in seven counties (Kern, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Yolo), six of which focused on housing cases, three of which focused on child custody cases, and one which focused on guardianship and conservatorship cases. (See Judicial Council of California (Jul. 2017) Evaluation of the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act (Evaluation).) Most of the projects began providing services to indigent parties in the fall of 2011. Each project was initially authorized for a three-year period, subject to renewal. Total initial available funding for all of the projects was $9.5 million per year. (See Judicial Council of California (Aug 2012) Fact Sheet: Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act.)

The pilot projects were operated by legal services nonprofit corporations, working in collaboration with local courts and other legal services providers in the community, in order to provide legal services for low-income Californians with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. The purpose of these services was to ensure that unrepresented parties in these important cases had meaningful access to justice; to guard against the involuntary waiver of rights, or disposition of cases by default; and to encourage the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, consistent with principles of judicial neutrality.

As originally enacted, the Shriver Act was scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2018. The sunset was lifted and the Act made permanent in mid-2016 with the passage of SB 843 (Committee on Budget) Chap. 33, Stats. 2016. In 2019, three critical changes were made to the Shriver Act with the enactment of AB 330 (Gabriel) Chap. 217, Stats. 2019. First, AB 330 increased fees charged to the public for certain court services by fifteen dollars, with the additional funds directed to increased Shriver funding. That bill also expanded indigent access to family law services. As initially enacted, up to 20 percent of Shriver funding could be directed to the provision of representation in cases where a parent sought legal or physical custody of a child; post-AB 330, this 20 percent slice of funding can be directed to representation in any family law matter, albeit with a continuing priority placed on child custody cases. Finally, AB 330 required the Judicial Council to begin studying the effectiveness and continued need for the Shriver program in 2020, and to report its findings and recommendations every five years thereafter. A significant portion of the statewide funding for tenant representation in unlawful detainer proceedings is now being derived from the Shriver Act.

This bill will help ensure limited Shriver Act funds are directed to the counties with the greatest need. Despite the modifications to the Shriver Act adopted by AB 330, the Act still does not have sufficient funding to provide counsel for all Californians that need legal assistance in civil matters. Indeed, the State Bar of California notes that approximately 85 percent of Californians receive no, or inadequate, legal assistance for their civil legal needs. (R. Avalos et al., 2019 California Justice Gap Study: Executive Report at 7.) Recognizing the need to direct scare resources to areas in which they are most needed, this measure seek to generate data regarding unlawful detainer actions across California. The measure requires individual county courts to transmit to the Judicial Council data including the number of unlawful detainer cases filed each month, how many cases involved fee waivers, and how many defendants were actually represented by counsel. Additionally, the bill requires disclosures about small claims cases involving the COVID-19 rental relief provisions that the Legislature has adopted over the last several years. Although not directly allocating any resources, this proposal lays the groundwork for a more efficient allocation of Shriver Act funds by determining in which counties the greatest need exists.

Potential implementation difficulties. This bill requires the Judicial Council to collect a large amount of data and publish it on their website. Although the Judicial Council has not expressed any concerns to this Committee regarding this data collection, experience has suggested that such a large-scale data operation is difficult for the courts. For example, a late-2022 report regarding issues in remote technology entirely omitted data for Los Angeles County, the state’s largest. Thus while this measure is necessary and wholly appropriate, the author may wish to consider working with the Judicial Council to ensure that the critical data sought by this bill can be accurately collected.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This measure is sponsored by the County of Los Angeles and is supported by the City of Los Angeles. In support of this bill, the county writes:

AB 875 directs trial courts to provide the Judicial Council with specified anonymous data on unlawful detainer (UD) cases and the total number of cases filed. AB 875 also requires additional disaggregated data on case outcomes by ZIP Code.

The state’s 58 county superior courts currently report aggregated UD case outcomes to the Judicial Council of California; however, reporting is inconsistent, and in some instances, it is not made public. As such, little is known about how landlords and tenants fare in courts, statewide. AB 875 would help to address gaps and inconsistencies in eviction-related data across the State, show the full scope of the eviction landscape, and enhance the budgeting, planning, and implementation of eviction prevention and defense programs across the State.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

County of Los Angeles (sponsor)

City of Los Angeles

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334