Existing law requires an action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.

This bill would require an assignee to identify the assignor who is the original real party in interest in the title of the case on the first document the assignee files in a proceeding.

Existing law requires an action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.

This bill would require an assignee to identify the assignor who is the original real party in interest in the title of the case on the first document the assignee files in a proceeding.

Existing law requires an action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.

This bill would require an assignee to identify the assignor who is the original real party in interest in the title of the case on the first document the assignee files in a proceeding.

Existing law requires an action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.

This bill would require an assignee to identify the assignor who is the real party in interest in the title of the case on the first document the assignee files in a proceeding.

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 932

Author:(Hurtado)

As Amended Ver:March 16, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires a party that has been assigned the right to pursue a civil cause of action to list the name of the original real party in interest in the title of the case on the first document the assignee files in a civil proceeding.

Major Provisions

Requires an assignee who has been assigned rights in a proceeding by an assignor who is the original real party in interest in the proceeding to identify the assignor and original real party in interest in the title of the case on the first document the assignee files in the proceeding.

COMMENTS

Under existing law, individuals and entities can generally assign their right to pursue a civil claim to another person or entity, with some exceptions for highly personalized tort claims and legal malpractice claims. (See Civil Code Sections 953, 954 and 1458; see also Lazar v. Bishop (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 668, 678.) This means the assignee can pursue the case just as the original party would have, asserting the same arguments and defenses, and receiving the same recovery. (See Dagher v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 905, 925 ("The assignee stands in the 'shoes' of the assignor, taking his or her rights and remedies, subject to any defenses that the obligor has against the assignor prior to notice of the assignment.").)

Currently, when a case is assigned to a third party, the name of the original real party in interest may or may not be included in the title of the case (i.e., the case caption). When an original real party in interest's name is not included in a case caption, this typically means they will not be listed as a party on the court's public docket, making it much more difficult for interested parties to find out if a particular individual is involved in a case. While the assignment of claims is a long-standing feature of California's judicial system, the author and sponsors of the bill contend that some bad actors have exploited the anonymity provided by this structure to evade their legal obligations and avoid public scrutiny.

Assignment of claims & docket searches. As mentioned above, the author and sponsors have asserted that some individuals have assigned claims to third parties or entities that they wholly control, in order to shield assets and avoid their obligations to creditors. Though an original real party in interest's name should be cited in any pleadings and other filings throughout the lifecycle of the proceeding, search engines and publicly available court docket searches typically only allow individuals to search by case title or case number. In other words, interested non-parties are unlikely to know whether an original real party in interest is in involved in a case if they are not listed as a party in the caption.

This bill addresses this issue by simply requiring an assignee to list the name of the original real party in interest in the caption of the first document in the assignee files in a proceeding, making it easier to find the party when searching a court’s public records or using search engines. Accordingly, this bill is likely to reduce the number of bad actors using the assignment process to avoid public scrutiny, their creditors, or any other legal obligations.

While some opponents of the bill have alleged that it provides for "inequitable disclosure" that could work against the public interest, the crux of their arguments seem to be that the bill should be expanded to provide for more disclosures, and more transparency. To resolve their concerns, the opposition has proposed amendments addressing disclosures of third-party litigation funders, and attorney conflict disclosures, among other things. However, these amendments appear to go far beyond the intent of the bill and should likely be addressed through separate legislation.

According to the Author

At a time when tackling fraud and strengthening accountability are top of mind for Californians, practical solutions that close systemic gaps are more important than ever. SB 932 delivers a targeted but powerful reform by closing a loophole in civil proceedings that allow bad actors to conceal financial assets and evade lawful judgments. Under current practices, assignors can exploit anonymity in case captions to recover and move funds without scrutiny, avoiding obligations owed to victims, creditors, and even public agencies.

While the assignability of rights remains a legitimate and important feature of commercial law, the absence of transparency has allowed it to be manipulated in ways that frustrate recovery efforts and undermine enforcement. SB 932 requires greater transparency, and protects victims, strengthens institutional integrity, and restores confidence that our judicial system can effectively maintain accountability and ensure that legal judgments are meaningfully enforced.

Arguments in Support

The bill's sponsor, the Conference of California Bar Associations, writes the following in support of the bill:

This change is needed to ensure that the real party-in-interest is properly identified, and to bring transparency to the sphere of assignments. Search engines and public court records typically capture only the names listed in the case caption. When an assignee files a lawsuit without identifying the assignor in the case title, the original party transferring the legal claim remains effectively hidden from the public, creditors, government agencies, and injured parties. This lack of transparency can be exploited to conceal financial recoveries. Assignors can route claims through shell companies, often formed in states that allow anonymous ownership, allowing them to collect money indirectly without clear public visibility. As a result, this structure can make it easier to hide assets and avoid paying money that is legally owed to victims, creditors, or government agencies, undermining accountability and enforcement.

Identifying the assignor would not be a new or unusual concept, as similar disclosure requirements already exist for plaintiffs suing in a representative capacity, such as guardians ad litem or trustees. This approach is consistent with Section 367 of the same Code (namely the Code of Civil Procedure), which provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest unless otherwise specified by statute. SB 932 is seeking to add a layer of transparency to clearly identify the real party in interest within civil proceedings.

Arguments in Opposition

In opposition to the bill, the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition states the bill "provides for inequitable disclosure that may work against the public interest particularly within complex civil litigation." Specifically, the Coalition takes issue with the bill's narrow focus, arguing that limiting disclosure to assignees and original parties in interest leaves gaps in transparency and fails to provide courts and parties with a full picture of who stands to benefit financially from litigation. For those reasons and others, the Coalition argues the bill should be amended to expand disclosure requirements to all "core" parties; require disclosure of any litigation financing arrangements; and require specified conflict disclosures from attorneys representing multiple parties, among other things.

FISCAL COMMENTS

None

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Niello, Padilla

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: March 16, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kristian Wright / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003151

Date of Hearing: June 9, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 932

Author:(Hurtado) – As Amended Ver:March 16, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

SYNOPSIS

Generally, California allows a person to transfer or assign their right to pursue a civil cause of action to another person or entity. When a person assigns this right, the assignee stands in the shoes of the “original real party in interest” and can pursue the case just as the original party would have, asserting the same arguments and defenses, and receiving the same recovery. Under existing law, the original party’s name is not required to be identified in the case caption on documents filed in connection with a civil proceeding, in the case of an assignment. This makes it significantly more difficult for non-parties, like journalists and creditors, to discover that the original party is involved in a case. The author and sponsors contend that some individuals have exploited this anonymity and have intentionally assigned their case rights to entities that they wholly control to evade their legal obligations and avoid public scrutiny.

To address this concern, this bill requires an assignee to name an original real party in interest in the title of the case on the first document the assignee files in a proceeding. This bill is sponsored by the Conference of California Bar Associations. It is also opposed by the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition. The Coalition generally contends that the bill fails to address critical gaps in transparency and financial conflict disclosures that exist in complex civil litigation.

SUMMARY: Requires a party that has been assigned the right to pursue a civil cause of action to list the name of the original real party in interest in the title of the case on the first document the assignee files in a civil proceeding.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines a “thing in action” to mean a right to recover money or other personal property by a judicial proceeding. (Civil Code Section 953.)
2. Provides that, a thing in action, arising out of the violation of a right of property, or out of an obligation, may be transferred by the owner. (Civil Code Section 954.)
3. Provides that, a right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred as such. (Civil Code Section 1458.)
4. Provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.)
5. Provides that a person who is participating in the confidentiality program administered by the Secretary of State and is party to a civil proceeding may proceed using a pseudonym, and may exclude or redact from all pleadings and documents filed in the action other identifying characteristics of that person. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.3.)
6. Provides that, in the case of an assignment of a thing in action, the assignment by the assignee is without prejudice to any set-off, or other defense existing at the time of or before notice of the assignment, except in cases involving a negotiable promissory note or bill of exchange, transferred in good faith, and upon good consideration, before maturity. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 368.)
7. Provides that an action of proceeding does not abate by the transfer of an interest in the action or proceeding or by any other transfer of an interest, and that when such an interest is transferred, the action or proceeding may be continued in the name of the original party, or the court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action or proceeding. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 368.5)

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

COMMENTS: Under existing law, individuals and entities can generally assign their right to pursue a civil claim to another person or entity, with some exceptions for highly personalized tort claims and legal malpractice claims. (See Civil Code Sections 953, 954 and 1458; see also Lazar v. Bishop (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 668, 678.) This means the assignee can pursue the case just as the original party would have, asserting the same arguments and defenses, and receiving the same recovery. (See Dagher v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 905, 925 (“The assignee stands in the ‘shoes’ of the assignor, taking his or her rights and remedies, subject to any defenses that the obligor has against the assignor prior to notice of the assignment.”).)

Currently, when a case is assigned to a third party, the name of the original real party in interest may or may not be included in the title of the case (i.e., the case caption). When an original real party in interest’s name is not included in a case caption, this typically means they will not be listed as a party on the court’s public docket, making it much more difficult for interested parties to find out if a particular individual is involved in a case. While the assignment of claims is a long-standing feature of California’s judicial system, the author and sponsors of the bill contend that some bad actors have exploited the anonymity provided by this structure to evade their legal obligations and avoid public scrutiny.

Specifically, the author states:

At a time when tackling fraud and strengthening accountability are top of mind for Californians, practical solutions that close systemic gaps are more important than ever. SB 932 delivers a targeted but powerful reform by closing a loophole in civil proceedings that allow bad actors to conceal financial assets and evade lawful judgments. Under current practices, assignors can exploit anonymity in case captions to recover and move funds without scrutiny, avoiding obligations owed to victims, creditors, and even public agencies.

While the assignability of rights remains a legitimate and important feature of commercial law, the absence of transparency has allowed it to be manipulated in ways that frustrate recovery efforts and undermine enforcement. SB 932 requires greater transparency, and protects victims, strengthens institutional integrity, and restores confidence that our judicial system can effectively maintain accountability and ensure that legal judgments are meaningfully enforced.

Assignment of claims & docket searches. As mentioned above, the author and sponsors have asserted that some individuals have assigned claims to third parties or entities that they wholly control, in order to shield assets and avoid their obligations to creditors. Though an original real party in interest’s name should be cited in any pleadings and other filings throughout the lifecycle of the proceeding, search engines and publicly available court docket searches typically only allow individuals to search by case title or case number. In other words, interested non-parties are unlikely to know whether an original real party in interest is in involved in a case if they are not listed as a party in the caption.

This bill addresses this issue by simply requiring an assignee to list the name of the original real party in interest in the caption of the first document in the assignee files in a proceeding, making it easier to find the party when searching a court’s public records or using search engines. Accordingly, this bill is likely to reduce the number of bad actors using the assignment process to avoid public scrutiny, their creditors, or any other legal obligations.

While some opponents of the bill have alleged that it provides for “inequitable disclosure” that could work against the public interest, the crux of their arguments seem to be that the bill should be expanded to provide for more disclosures, and more transparency. To resolve their concerns, the opposition has proposed amendments addressing disclosures of third-party litigation funders, and attorney conflict disclosures, among other things. However, these amendments appear to go far beyond the intent of the bill and should likely be addressed through separate legislation.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The bill’s sponsor, the Conference of California Bar Associations, writes the following in support of the bill:

This change is needed to ensure that the real party-in-interest is properly identified, and to bring transparency to the sphere of assignments. Search engines and public court records typically capture only the names listed in the case caption. When an assignee files a lawsuit without identifying the assignor in the case title, the original party transferring the legal claim remains effectively hidden from the public, creditors, government agencies, and injured parties. This lack of transparency can be exploited to conceal financial recoveries. Assignors can route claims through shell companies, often formed in states that allow anonymous ownership, allowing them to collect money indirectly without clear public visibility. As a result, this structure can make it easier to hide assets and avoid paying money that is legally owed to victims, creditors, or government agencies, undermining accountability and enforcement.

Identifying the assignor would not be a new or unusual concept, as similar disclosure requirements already exist for plaintiffs suing in a representative capacity, such as guardians ad litem or trustees. This approach is consistent with Section 367 of the same Code (namely the Code of Civil Procedure), which provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest unless otherwise specified by statute. SB 932 is seeking to add a layer of transparency to clearly identify the real party in interest within civil proceedings.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition to the bill, the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition states the bill “provides for inequitable disclosure that may work against the public interest particularly within complex civil litigation.” Specifically, the Coalition takes issue with the bill’s narrow focus, arguing that limiting disclosure to assignees and original parties in interest leaves gaps in transparency and fails to provide courts and parties with a full picture of who stands to benefit financially from litigation. For those reasons and others, the Coalition argues the bill should be amended to expand disclosure requirements to all “core” parties; require disclosure of any litigation financing arrangements; and require specified conflict disclosures from attorneys representing multiple parties, among other things.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Conference of California Bar Associations (sponsor)

Opposition

The Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition

Analysis Prepared by: Kristian Wright / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 932

Author: Hurtado (D)

Amended: 3/16/26

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 12-0, 3/24/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Ashby

SUBJECT: Civil proceedings: real party in interest

SOURCE: Conference of California Bar Associations

DIGEST:

This bill requires the assignee of rights in a legal proceeding to identify the assignor of the rights and the original real party in interest in the proceeding in the title of the case on the first document that the assignee files in the proceeding.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that a right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred to another person as such. (Civil (Civ.) Code, § 1458.)
2. Provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest in the action, except as otherwise provided by statute. (Code of Civ. Procedure (Proc.), § 367.)
3. Establishes, as an exception to 2), a procedure by which a person who is a participant in the state address confidentiality program for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, child abduction, and elder or dependent adult abuse may proceed in a civil action using a pseudonym. (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.3.)
4. Provides that, in the case of an assignment of a thing in action, the assignment by the assignee is without prejudice to any set-off, or other defense existing at the time of, or before, notice of the assignment, except for specified cases involving a negotiable promissory note or bill of exchange. (Code Civ. Proc., § 368.)
5. Provides that an action or proceeding does not abate by the transfer of an interest in the action or proceeding or by any other transfer of an interest, and that when such an interest is transferred, the action or proceeding may be continued in the name of the original party, or the court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 368.5.)

This bill requires an assignee who has been assigned rights in a proceeding by an assignor who is the original party in interest in the proceeding to identify the assignor and original party in interest in the title of the case on the first document the assignee files in the proceeding.

Comments

California law treats the right to pursue a civil action in court like property. This means that the right to file a case can be transferred, or “assigned,” to another person or entity. When a person assigns their case rights, the assignee can pursue the case exactly as the original party would have done—they can assert the same claims, make the same arguments, and, if they prevail, obtain the same recovery. Under current law, when an original real party in interest assigns their case rights to another person, the original real party in interest’s name does not need to be identified in the case caption, even though their rights are the ones being asserted in the proceeding. While the assignor will be identified over the course of the case, leaving the real party in interest off of the caption means they will not be listed as a party on the docket, making it significantly more difficult for journalists or other interested parties to discover that the assignor is involved in a case. According to the author and sponsors, some individuals deliberately assign claims to third parties, or corporate entities that they wholly control, to avoid public scrutiny of their cases.

This bill requires the original real party in interest to be listed in the case caption when an assignee first files a document in the case, thereby ensuring that the original real party in interest is listed on the docket.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 3/25/26)

Conference of California Bar Associations (source)

OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/25/26)

Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Conference of California Bar Associations:

This change is needed to ensure that the real party-in-interest is properly identified, and to bring transparency to the sphere of assignments. Search engines and public court records typically capture only the names listed in the case caption. When an assignee files a lawsuit without identifying the assignor in the case title, the original party transferring the legal claim remains effectively hidden from the public, creditors, government agencies, and injured parties. This lack of transparency can be exploited to conceal financial recoveries. Assignors can route claims through shell companies, often formed in states that allow anonymous ownership, allowing them to collect money indirectly without clear public visibility. As a result, this structure can make it easier to hide assets and avoid paying money that is legally owed to victims, creditors, or government agencies, undermining accountability and enforcement.

Identifying the assignor would not be a new or unusual concept, as similar disclosure requirements already exist for plaintiffs suing in a representative capacity, such as guardians ad litem or trustees. This approach is consistent with Section 367 of the same Code (namely the Code of Civil Procedure), which provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest unless otherwise specified by statute. SB 932 is seeking to add a layer of transparency to clearly identify the real party in interest within civil proceedings.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition:

We are in opposition to SB 932 given that it provides for inequitable disclosure that may work against the public interest particularly within complex civil litigation. The proposed bill fails to address critical gaps in transparency and financial conflict disclosure.

While the bill is well intentioned and appears to take an important step toward transparency by requiring disclosures for the “original real party in interest,” it is incomplete and therefore insufficient to address the realities of modern complex litigation, particularly mass tort, coordinated or consolidated proceedings involving thousands of plaintiffs and overlapping legal representation

Prepared by: Allison Whitt Meredith / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

3/25/26 16:17:24

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 932 (Author:Hurtado)

Version: March 16, 2026

Hearing Date: March 24, 2026

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Civil proceedings: real party in interest

DIGEST

This bill requires the assignee of rights in a legal proceeding to identify the assignor of the rights and the original real party in interest in the proceeding in the title of the case on the first document that the assignee files in the proceeding.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

California law treats the right to pursue a civil action in court like property. This means that the right to file a case can be transferred, or “assigned,” to another person or entity. When a person assigns their case rights, the assignee can pursue the case exactly as the original party would have done—they can assert the same claims, make the same arguments, and, if they prevail, obtain the same recovery. Under current law, when an original real party in interest assigns their case rights to another person, the original real party in interest’s name does not need to be identified in the case caption, even though their rights are the ones being asserted in the proceeding. While the assignor will be identified over the course of the case, leaving the real party in interest off of the caption means they will not be listed as a party on the docket, making it significantly more difficult for journalists or other interested parties to discover that the assignor is involved in a case. According to the author and sponsors, some individuals deliberately assign claims to third parties, or corporate entities that they wholly control, to avoid public scrutiny of their cases.

This bill requires the original real party in interest to be listed in the case caption when an assignee first files a document in the case, thereby ensuring that the original real party in interest is listed on the docket.

This bill is sponsored by the Conference of California Bar Associations. The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Provides that a right arising out of an obligation is the property of the person to whom it is due, and may be transferred to another person as such. (Civ. Code, § 1458.)
2. Provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest in the action, except as otherwise provided by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.)
3. Establishes, as an exception to 2), a procedure by which a person who is a participant in the state address confidentiality program for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, child abduction, and elder or dependent adult abuse may proceed in a civil action using a pseudonym. (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.3.)
4. Provides that, in the case of an assignment of a thing in action, the assignment by the assignee is without prejudice to any set-off, or other defense existing at the time of, or before, notice of the assignment, except for specified cases involving a negotiable promissory note or bill of exchange. (Code Civ. Proc., § 368.)

1. Provides that an action or proceeding does not abate by the transfer of an interest in the action or proceeding or by any other transfer of an interest, and that when such an interest is transferred, the action or proceeding may be continued in the name of the original party, or the court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 368.5.)

This bill requires an assignee who has been assigned rights in a proceeding by an assignor who is the original party in interest in the proceeding to identify the assignor and original party in interest in the title of the case on the first document the assignee files in the proceeding.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

At a time when tackling fraud and strengthening accountability are top of mind for Californians, practical solutions that close systemic gaps are more important than ever. SB 932 delivers a targeted but powerful reform by closing a loophole in civil proceeding filings that allows bad actors to conceal financial assets and evade lawful judgments. Under current practices, assignors can exploit anonymity in case captions to recover and move funds without scrutiny, avoiding obligations owed to victims, creditors, and even public agencies.

While the assignability of rights remains a legitimate and important feature of commercial law, the absence of transparency has allowed it to be manipulated in ways that frustrate recovery efforts and undermine enforcement. By requiring greater transparency, SB 932 protects victims, strengthens institutional integrity, and restores confidence that our judicial system can effectively uphold accountability and ensure that legal judgments are meaningfully enforced.

2. This bill requires the name of the person or entity who assigned the right to pursue a case to a third party to be listed in the case caption on the first document filed by the third party in the case

California law treats the right to pursue a civil action in the courts like property.^[1] This means that the right to file a case can be transferred, or “assigned,” to another party.^[2] When a party assigns their case rights to another person or entity, the assignee can pursue the case exactly as the original party would have done—they can assert the same claims, make the same arguments, and, if they prevail, obtain the same recovery.^[3] Similarly, the defendant in an assigned action can raise all of the same defenses against the assignee that they could have raised against the original party—so, e.g., if the court would have lacked jurisdiction over the matter when it was filed by the original party, the defendant can also assert that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter when filed by the assignee.^[4]

When a party assigns the rights to a case that has already been filed, the case name may or may not be changed: the assignee can continue the case in the name of the original party, or the assignee’s name can replace the original party in the case caption.^[5] When a party assigns their case rights before the case is filed, however, the assignee will always appear as the real party in interest in the case caption. The assignor’s identity cannot stay hidden—the identity of the assignor must be disclosed in the pleadings, because the assignor’s experience is what gave rise to the case—but without the assignor’s name in the caption, it becomes significantly more difficult to uncover the assignor’s involvement in the case. Many media outlets and creditors regularly search public court dockets to determine whether particular entities or individuals are involved in litigation, but, due to the volume of cases filed, these searches are generally limited to searching case titles. As a result, assigning a case to a third party (especially a banal-sounding limited liability company (LLC)) can be an effective tactic to hide one’s involvement in a case. The sponsor of the bill has several stories of debtors assigning case rights to LLCs so that they could pursue recovery without their creditors noticing.

This bill is intended to prevent the real party in interest in a case from avoiding public scrutiny by requiring an assignee to include the name of the assignor—and the name of the original real party in interest, if the case has been assigned multiple times—in the caption in the first document they file in a case. This will cause the original real party in interest’s name to be included in the case docket, thereby making them more easily discoverable through public records searches. This bill does not affect the right of certain at-risk parties to pursue a case—as a party, or as an assignor—using a pseudonym.^[6] At the time this analysis was finalized, Committee staff had not received opposition to this bill.

3. Arguments in support

According to the Conference of California Bar Associations:

This change is needed to ensure that the real party-in-interest is properly identified, and to bring transparency to the sphere of assignments. Search engines and public court records typically capture only the names listed in the case caption. When an assignee files a lawsuit without identifying the assignor in the case title, the original party transferring the legal claim remains effectively hidden from the public, creditors, government agencies, and injured parties. This lack of transparency can be exploited to conceal financial recoveries. Assignors can route claims through shell companies, often formed in states that allow anonymous ownership, allowing them to collect money indirectly without clear public visibility. As a result, this structure can make it easier to hide assets and avoid paying money that is legally owed to victims, creditors, or government agencies, undermining accountability and enforcement.

Identifying the assignor would not be a new or unusual concept, as similar disclosure requirements already exist for plaintiffs suing in a representative capacity, such as guardians ad litem or trustees. This approach is consistent with Section 367 of the same Code (namely the Code of Civil Procedure), which provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest unless otherwise specified by statute. SB 932 is seeking to add a layer of transparency to clearly identify the real party in interest within civil proceedings.

SUPPORT

Conference of California Bar Associations (sponsor)

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: None known.

Prior legislation: None known.

**************

1. Civ. Code, § 1458. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Code Civ. Proc., § 368.5. ↑

4. Code Civ. Proc., § 368. There is a narrow exception to the defendant’s right to plead the same defenses against an assignee when the case relates to negotiable promissory notes or bills of exchange. (Ibid.) ↑

5. Id., § 368.5. ↑

6. See id., § 367.3. ↑