Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. I'd like to start off by noting that AB 2026, Mathis and AB 2031, Jones-Sawyer have been pulled from this morning's hearing. The rules for witness testimony that each side will be allowed two main witnesses. Each witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposite position to the bill. Additional witnesses should state their names, organization, if any, and their position on the respective bill.

As you proceed with witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the committee has rules to ensure we maintain order to run a fair and efficient hearing. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. At this time, we do not have a quorum, so we will proceed as a committee of the whole. And the only bill author we have is our committee member, Assembly Member Pacheco. So proceed whenever you're ready. And this is item 3, AB 2024.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I am here to present Assembly Bill 2024. I want to start by saying that I accept the Committee amendments and I thank the Committee staff for all their hard work on this bill. AB 2024 aims to strengthen protective measures for victims of domestic abuse through California's judicial system. The bill will prohibit the denial of an ex parte restraining order due to menial errors in the petition prior to review by a judicial officer.

A restraining order is a court order issued to help protect the victim from being physically or sexually abused, threatened, stalked, or harassed. In almost all domestic abuse cases, leaving an abuser is the most dangerous time for a victim and reason for a request to have a court issue a restraining order in a timely manner.

Yet courts across California has different standards and requirements for issuing ex parte restraining orders and may reject a petition for simple issues such as having the first name last name filled out in reverse order. These inconsistent standards may result in a rejection of restraining order petition in one county before a judicial officer even has the opportunity to review the merits while the neighboring county will accept the order.

Errors of little importance on the petition form, such as the order in which names are written, should not be a reason that a petitioner's request is rejected or delayed by a clerk. AB 2024 will give a judicial officer the opportunity to review an ex parte restraining order by focusing on the merits of the case and will create a standard across California to ensure timely protection.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses this morning?

No witnesses.

All right, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to express support for this item? Anyone here in opposition to AB 2024? Okay. We'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Well, Assembly Member, I appreciate you bringing this forward. This seems like a common sense, thoughtful piece of legislation to clarify items that are very meaningful to those that are seeking protection. So we'll take it up when we have a quorum, but thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

All right. Madam Secretary, if we can call roll for quorum, please?

[Roll Call].

All right, we have a quorum. Is there a motion and a second on the consent calendar? And a second. So we have a motion from Assembly Member Reyes, a second by Vice Chair Dixon.

You want me to read it?

[Consent Calendar].

Yeah.

And if we can call roll on the vote on the consent calendar, please?

[Roll Call].

All right. Consent calendar is passed. Do we have a motion on AB 2024: Pacheco? We have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call on the vote, please?

Action is 'do pass as amended.' [Roll Call].

Okay, the bill is out, and we wait. We started at 9:00 a.m. sharp.

Well, thanks. Shucks. Stop it.

And we just established quorum. And for the record, Assembly Member Maienschein is here and has two bills to present: AB 2016 and AB 2248. Would you like to start with AB 2016?

Absolutely.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. Today we face a critical issue affecting many low- and middle-income families in California: the rapid escalation of home values. This surge in property prices has resulted in estates which include modest family homes no longer qualifying for the small estate process. To address this challenge and to protect the intergenerational transfer of wealth for our communities, I'm proud to present AB 2016.

This bill aims to update the value of estates eligible for the state's expedited small estate probate process. By increasing the small estate value to $750,000, AB 2016 would empower most low- and middle-income heirs to utilize the expedited process when inheriting the family home. This would not only ensure smoother transitions, but also save precious court resources and reduce opportunities for abuse during probate proceedings.

Furthermore, it would prevent heirs from being caught up in California's lengthy probate court process, especially when trying to establish title to the family home after the passing of a loved one. In essence, this bill is about preserving intergenerational wealth and providing families with the support they need during challenging times. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me here to testify in support is Maeve Brown from Housing and Economic Rights Advocates.

Thank you so much. Up to two minutes.

Thank you so much. Thanks to everybody for hearing this. I'm the director of Housing and Economic Rights Advocates. We're a nonprofit law office that provides free legal services across the State of California, and we work on household debt and credit issues. And during the great foreclosure crisis, we saw many households losing the family home because title remained unsettled. You cannot get a loan modification. You cannot refinance. You can't do squat with your home to protect it, to save it from foreclosure until title is established.

And many had not even attempted to start the probate process. Some were trapped in the jaws of the probate process. And so that is why we think this is a very important issue. This is the way that we build wealth as Americans and--as passing the family home. It's the primary asset in most low- and modern-income households' portfolio. And so that is our interest in this; having seen the devastation that happens from--when that's really the one asset to be moved forward. And interestingly enough--values, because of the way they've shot up--our law hasn't caught up with that reality. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else here in support of AB 2016? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2016? I'll bring it back to the dais for any comments or motions. Yes, Vice Chair?

Good morning, Mr. Maeinschein. Just a quick question. I'm supportive of the bill. You changed the law or were the author of a law that was changed two years, four years ago, maybe in 2019-2020? So are you building on those changes? Or what did you discover that wasn't enough? Or just give me some background.

I don't know, which--I was author of probably of a lot of bills in 2018. But-

-473, related to this same subject.

Okay. The intent of this bill is--look, I think the number probably is going to have to go up, even from here, because by the time we get this bill to floor and pass, this number will be outdated, too. It's to lift the number. I mean, for most people, the one asset they have that they can pass down to their children is their home. That's really going to be their most significant asset. For some people, it's really probably their only asset.

So with the number being as low as it currently is, it means basically every home in California is going to have to go through a lengthy probate process. More difficult for the heirs to manage. We know the probate process. I mean, that's another issue, but is exceedingly long and exceedingly difficult--by the way, for people who are grieving. You know, some of these people--heirs may live somewhere else--they don't have to live in the same city.

It's very complicated process, and the number is way too low. So moving it up to $750,000 candidly, it's a huge step, and it's much, much better. But this is a bill that I anticipate two years from now, four years from now, six years from now, that number probably should go up from there.

And you've included in that that automatic escalator on the cost. It jumped it to $184,000 two years ago, which seemed below the market rate of average home in California. But anyway, I just wanted to get a clarification for that. Okay.

Thank you.

That's it.

Assembly Member Pacheco.

So I thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I used to do estate planning, so I see the importance of increasing the amount. You're correct. Probate process can be a lengthy process. It could be an emotional process. So I commend you for bringing this bill forward, and I would love to be added as a co-author.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you.

Would you like to make a motion, Senator Pacheco?

I'll make a motion.

Is there a second? We have a motion and a second. Any other comment? Senator Maienschein, thank you so much for bringing this important bill forward. Would you like to make any closing comments?

Absolutely. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair and members, respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, take a roll call on the vote, please.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Kalra. Aye. Dixon. Aye. Bauer-Kahan. Aye. Bryan. Connolly. Aye. Haney. Maienschein. Aye. Mckinnor. Aye. Pacheco. Aye. Reyes. Sanchez. Aye.

All right, the bill is out. We'll keep the roll open. And then item 5, AB 2248.

Thank you very much again, Mr. Chair and Members. California has been a national leader in eliminating the use of puppy mills, which are designed to maximize profits at the expense of the animals in their ownership. Animals are generally kept in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions without adequate veterinary care, food, water, or socialization. After California banned the sale of puppy mill animals in pet stores, the business largely shifted online to continue selling pets to California consumers.

These sites display photos and provide only minimal information about a puppy, such as their age and their breed. A visitor to the site is prompted to pay in full or to Reserve the puppy by placing a deposit. This non refundable payment is required before the company will provide anything other than generic information to the consumer, including information about the breeder. In short, these businesses collect hundreds of dollars from consumers for just the opportunity to ask questions about the puppy they are interested in.

If a consumer learns the name of the seller and has concerns, they must move forward with the contract or lose their deposit. Consumer complaints describe bait and switch tactics, which include receiving pets that are sick or different than what was pictured at the point of sale. The nonrefundable deposits are predatory and used purely as a sales tactic.

To address this, AB 2248 states that a contract for the sale of a dog or cat is void if it requires a nonrefundable deposit and does not disclose the source of the pet. The Bill also requires sellers to refund the deposit within 30 days if the contract is voided. Thank you, and I respectfully request your. I vote thank you.

Do you have any witnesses? I do.

With me to testify in support is Brittany Benesi like from the ASPCA.

Great. You have up to two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair Kalra and Members of the Committee, Brittany Benesi, on behalf of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. For decades, the ASPCA has worked to address puppy mills and the puppy mill pipeline, a predatory industry that makes cruel out-of-state breeding conditions profitable by misleading consumers with wholesome images and manipulative financial tactics.

California has been a leader in this issue, prohibiting the sale of cats and dogs at retail pet stores to limit the sale of commercially bred animals in the state. Unfortunately, the puppy mill pipeline remains alive and well online. As has been described, these businesses collect hundreds of dollars from consumers just for the opportunity to ask questions about the puppy they are interested in.

And if a consumer learns the name of the seller and has concerns, their only choices are to move forward with the contract or lose their funds. And indications are clear that the overwhelming majority of the puppies for sale on these sites come from commercial suppliers. This is a business based on volume.

These sites must offer a large number and wide variety of puppies for purchase, and the puppies must offer a wide enough profit so that all actors in the pipeline can get paid from the supplier to the broker, the transporter, the online storefront itself, marketing and the operation of call centers, which the author's office can tell you if you share any information with, they will be contacting you.

Traditional breed associations promote the benefits of researching breeders, meeting them in person, visiting the kennel, and seeing the parents and littermates. These groups caution against breeders who do not share transparency, and most breed groups actively prohibit members from selling through third party sellers. All of which further point to the fact that puppies on these sites are coming from commercial breeders.

We believe that collecting non refundable deposits from consumers before they even have the opportunity to ask questions about the dog, the breeder, or review a real contract is predatory and grossly lopsided. And at a time when California shelters are overflowing with adoptable puppies, Kittens, dogs and cats, protecting consumers from commercial sellers is a multi benefit approach. AB 2248 will further California's commitment to ending the puppy mill pipeline and help our consumers find their companion locally. Thank you for your time today. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2248?

Good morning, Chair, Committee Members. My name is Barbara Schmitz. I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco SPCA. We're in support.

Thank you so much. Is everyone here in opposition to AB 2248? All right, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments? Motions? Second? All right, we have a motion and a second. And our Legislature has done a lot over the years in dealing with these puppy mills, and I appreciate you identifying further things we can do because they seem to be relentless in their efforts to.

At least the unscrupulous breeders and sellers seem to be relentless. So this seems like another way for us to continue our journey against them. So I appreciate you for bringing it forward. Love to be added as a co-author. And would you like to close?

Yeah, thank you very much. To your point, we have done a lot on this. This was kind of a workaround that they figured out and now we're going to stop this one. And if they have another workaround, we'll stop that one, too. But this is a good step in that direction. So with that, I thank you and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Take roll on the vote.

Motions do pass. [Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is out. Thank you so much. And we have one more Bill to hear. In the meantime, let's go ahead and allow those to add on. I believe Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan and Maienschein still need to add on to consent. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay. [Roll Call]

Okay, and then for AB 2024, Pacheco, I believe some of her, Maienschein, and Bauer-Kahan needs to add to that as well.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so I think everyone's caught up with the exception of those that I think you're right. I would like to add on as.

Well on this one.

I'm talking about adding on to votes. Yeah. Let's double-check with Assemblymember Sanchez on the consent calendar as well as 2024. Okay. Did you want to add on as a co-author for a Bill? Do you want to add on as a co-author? Is that. You were afraid? That's what I thought it was. On Assemblymembers Maienschein's last Bill. Okay, we'll make a note of that, too, if that's okay with the summer Maienschein, a bipartisan supported Bill. I love that. The animals. It's all about the animals.

Can I add myself?

There you go. Anybody else? All right, look at this. This Bill is just rolling. They get a Committee-.

All right, so our final items. AB 2004. Petrie Norris. Take a deep breath and take your time. And whenever you're ready, please proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here this morning to present AB 2004, which makes two minor changes to improve remote online notarization. Last year, as you may recall, California established a legal framework for remote online notarization. Unfortunately, this framework did not consider county recorder offices in 13 California counties that are actually currently not equipped to accept electronic documents for recording purposes. And so the changes that we're making in AB 2004 will enable all counties across the state to integrate electronic processes.

And I'd now like to turn it over to Anthony Helton, on behalf of the California Land Title Association, and Cliff Costa, who's representing the National Notary Association, who will just walk through a few more of the details in the bill.

We have a motion and a second. Thank you so much. Up to two minutes each, please. Sure.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members: Anthony Helton with the California Land Title Association. AB 2004 is a straightforward measure primarily intended to create a process by which remotely notarized documents can be converted to paper through the certification of a notary public for the purpose of being recorded in real property records. Legislation was drafted in coordination with the National Notary Association.

Takes a page from existing law, which already states that a notary may certify a copy of power of attorney under the Probate Code, follows the example of 35 other states that provide for the papering out of remotely notarized documents. I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee may have as best I can. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members: Cliff Costa, on behalf of the National Notary Association as well as the California Escrow Association, we stand in strong support of the bill and are here to answer any notarial-related questions. But given the time and the issue, happy to yield the rest of my time to the chair.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the audience in support of AB 2004, name organization, if any, and your position on the bill? Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, committee members: Stephanie Estrada, on behalf of First American Title. Proud co-sponsors in support. Thank you.

Morning Chair. Matt Roman, Niemela Pappas & Associates, here in support of both Proof and Zillow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Indira Mc Donald here on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association, in support.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Anna Buck, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Emily Udell with the California Credit Union League in support.

Thank you. Is everyone here in opposition to AB 2004? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. We do have a motion on the table. Any further comment? Okay, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will close by simply respectfully asking for an aye vote. Oh, and a second.

Earlier. I forgot to ask earlier, do you accept the amendments?

Oh, yes. Thank you.

So that's reflected in the motion. And so, Madam Secretary, if we can take the roll for the vote on AB 2004, please.

Motion is do passes amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill is out. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, if we can return. Yes, we'll do with Assemblymember Bryan, and we'll start with consent. Excuse me, everybody, if you can just keep it down a little bit, we have a few more add ons to do. Thank you. Thanks.

This is for consent. Bryan. Aye.

And then item 2,3 and 5.

Item 2, AB 2016. Bryan. Aye. Item 3, AB 2024. Ouch. Bryan. Aye. AB 2248. Bryan. Aye.

Okay, so you are all caught up. No, it's all good.

Assembly Member Reyes. Item 1, AB 2004.

Reyes. Aye.

Okay, and then item 2, AB 2016 Maienschein.

Reyes. Aye.

And item 5, AB 2248 Maienschein.

Reyes. Aye.

Okay, I think you're all caught up. Thank you, Assembly Member Reyes.

We are adjourned.