Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome our sergeants, Erica and Matt. Thank you for your assistance here. Okay, so we're going to begin as a Subcommitee here as soon as we have an Assembly author, but let me begin by announcing those bills that are on consent. So if you're here for a Bill that's on consent, I would expect it to remain on consent.

They are as AB 3286 by the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, AB 2278 by Assemblymember Wendy Currio, AB 2287 by Assemblymember Chen, AB 2067 by Assemblymember Dixon, AB 2455 with amendments by Assembly Member Gabriel, AB 2835 by Assemblymember Gabriel, AB 1906 by Assemblymember Gipson. AB 2628 by Assemblymember Hart.

ACR 169 by Assembly Member Kalra, AB 295 with amendments by Assembly Member Lowenthal. AB 3196 by Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, AB 1785 by Assemblymember Pacheco, AB 2049 by Assemblymember Pacheco, AB 801 by Assemblymember Patterson, that's with amendments. AB 801 with amendments AB 2096 by Assemblymember Petrie Norris, AB 1948 by Assemblymember Rendon, AB 2373 by Assemblymember Rendon.

AB 2225 by Assemblymember Rodriguez, AB 2841 by Assemblymember Waldron with amendments, and AB 1900 by Assemblymember Weber. So let me announce the preliminary rules here, which we will follow. For all matters, all bills there will be permitted two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition.

For the primary witness in support and in opposition, each of them will be afforded two minutes each for a total of four minutes. After the two primary witnesses, if there are two primary witnesses in support testify, we'll take others who are in support, who are here, and those individuals should approach the microphone, give us their name, their affiliation, and their position. In other words, their name.

If they're affiliated with an organization and their position, either support or oppose or what have you on the Bill, we'll follow the exact same protocol for those in opposition. Two witnesses, two minutes each. And then we'll take testimony in opposition by approaching the microphone and give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

All right, so we have, once again, the Republicans have outdone the Democrats. 50% of the Republicans are here and only probably, yes, only about 18% of the Democrats. So we would welcome authors. If you show up, you'll be able to just walk right up to the microphone and begin presentation.

So if you are assemblymember Cervantes or Assembly Member Friedman or Assembly Member Gabriel or Assembly Member Kalra, that's it. You would be in luck if you showed up, Assemblymember Cervantes.

We are a Subcommitee, but I welcome your presentation on AB 1899.

Fantastic. Thank you so much, Mister chair and Committee Members, for the opportunity to present AB 1899, which will update the prospective juror's identification process as well as a jury selection process.

Existing law allows for a Jury Commissioner to require a person to complete a questionnaire that asks questions related to identification qualification, and ability to serve as a prospective juror. The first type of jury questionnaire form is meant to obtain identification qualifications and ability to serve.

The second type is meant for assisting in the jury selection process or to determine if the selection of the population is representative. This occurs once the prospective juror is placed on a jury panel. This means that the prospective juror's answers on the questionnaire for assisting in jury selection are given under penalty of perjury.

While the jury selection process varies considerably across jurisdictions, usually questioning is done by a judge or a counsel. A template juror questionnaire that uses inclusive language for gender, nonconforming, and non binary individuals may alleviate the pressures of misidentification as they fulfill one of their obligations as citizens of the United States.

We all know that traditional approaches limit the inclusion of the LGBTQ community and can contribute to the erasure of identity that may cause harm to these marginalized groups. As we are also aware, the LGBTQ community has often been othered, and this Bill seeks to change that for many in California.

By acknowledgment, an affirmation of diverse gender identities may reduce the potential for discomfort and alienation during the jury selection process. According to the United States Census Bureau, it is estimated that there are 2.7 million LGBTQ people in California. Individuals who experience misgendering often experience psychological distress and depression.

AB 1899 will require superior courts to ask for their pronouns in an open ended format and prohibit the use of gendered salutations. This Bill will provide a level of consistency across our entire state by requiring the Judicial Council to publish a template jury questionnaire that will be inclusive of the LGBTQ community. Finally, this Bill will update the maximums of jurisprudence, which were enacted in 1872, to use gender neutral terms.

Witnesses in support. Any witnesses in support? No witnesses in support. All right, if you are in support of AB 1899, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's turn now to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1899, please come forward.

David Bolog of the SFE alliance in opposition. Thank you

Thank you. Others in opposition. Seeing no one else in opposition, let's bring it back to Committee. Committee Members, questions? Senator Laird.

I guess I know there's no quorum. I think this is a good Bill, and I'll be happy to move it when we get a quorum. And I was there in 1872. They should have done that,

You know and I remember that Senator Laird. So, all right. Thing. No questions, no comments. Then some remember Cervantes, when we have a quorum, Senator Laird has promised to move the Bill and we'll bring it forward. So. All right. Thank you so much. Okay.

Thank you, Committee Members.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mister Vice Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Well, certainly look forward to just making sure that we provide a more welcoming and safe space for all of those who reflect California. Thank you so much. Appreciate an aye vote thank you.

All right, we're now awaiting other authors, and we aim to serve here in Senate judiciary. If you arrive, you will immediately be able to approach the microphone and present your Bill. So we're just lacking two Members to establish a quorum here. So if you're within earshot and you're serving on Senate Judiciary Committee, it would be wonderful if you presented yourself.

Hello. I beg your pardon. We were in another Committee.

Well, we aim to please here, so when you come in, you get right up to the microphone. I like it.

I'll come back more often.

All right.

Thank you Mister chair.

So yes, let's see, filing number six, AB 2801. We're a Subcommitee. Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister chair. And I wanted to thank you and your staff for all of your hard work on this Bill. This Bill comes out of an experience from one of our staff Members, and we have heard since we introduced this Bill of many other people that we know who have had similar experiences of landlords keeping their security deposit when there wasn't really a reason for that and them feeling that they really had no recourse.

And we with this Bill are trying to not set any new law in terms of what you can keep a security deposit for, but just give greater clarity to landlords and tenants about the conditions that current law already sets for that, and how you would go about by proving that.

So under current law, a landlord can only claim a security deposit whose amounts are reasonably necessary for the repair of damage to the premises, exclusive of ordinary wear and tear that's already in the law, to return the unit to the same level of cleanliness it was at the inception of the tenancy.

If a landlord withholds all or part of a security deposit without a valid reason, this is known as bad face retention. And unfortunately, we have heard of cases where landlords are just routinely keeping people's security deposit without there being damage.

And many times tenants will just give up rather than try to fight, and a lot of times they don't know how to do that. And without having that security deposit back, a lot of times tenants just can't put a security deposit down on their next unit. This is a real problem and it's not fair. AB 2801 helps with giving some of our most vulnerable communities a little extra protections to make sure that they understand the law.

The Bill requires a landlord to justify through before and after pictures why any funds from the security deposit were withheld, and it limits the amount for materials and supplies deducted to those that are really reasonably necessary to return the unit back to the condition.

It was not to upgrade the unit for the next tenant, not because they want to spend a lot of money on something fancy, but to bring it back. As the Attorney General pointed out in a recent settlement with a predatory landlord, for many renters, especially those from lower income backgrounds, affording a security deposit entails a great deal of sacrifice.

I want to thank the California Apartment Association again for working diligently with us on this Bill to find language that strikes a balance for both the landlord and the tenant for ensuring that the security deposits deductions apply to what existing law intended.

And to be clear, CAA is neutral, I believe, on the Bill because we have worked very closely with them. Testifying in support this afternoon is Kate Rogers, Director of Policy for GenUp, and Alexandra Romo, a Member of Power California Action. And with that, I would request an aye vote. Thank you.

Floor is yours.

Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Kate Rogers and I'm a Co-Chief of Policy for Generation Up, and I'm here today to represent the student homes coalition.

We're made up of several higher ed groups across the state, including UCSA, our time to act, NYI, and of course, genup, as well as 24 campus based affiliates that are advocating for fair housing policies at UC's community colleges and csus. So this past year was my first year living off campus.

I'm a current junior at UCLA, and like many campuses in California, UCLA is really just not an affordable area. So when my roommates and I finally found a place, we really struggled to come up with the money for our deposits, thousands of dollars. So we really, we need this money back when we were going to move out.

So you can imagine that I was really disheartened when I heard from former tenants in my building and other people in the area that we stood basically no chance of getting any of it back. Any wear and tear, including just ordinary damage, would result in us, like, losing huge amounts of money off of our deposit.

And as I would come to learn and any Westwood renter would tell you, this is just not unique to my landlord. Property managers know that students have basically no choice but to live within a very limited radius of our campus. And that makes it impossible for us to escape unfair practices or just astronomically high rents.

So to make matters worse, they also know that, like most of us, like assemblymember Friedman said, don't really have the resources to challenge any deductions in small claims court. So for them, it might mean an extra months or two of, you know, profit in terms of the rent.

But for us, that's our ability to afford to move, to pay our bills, and to put food on our tables. So AB 2801 is a top priority for the student Homes Coalition because it's a top priority for the tens of thousands of students that we represent.

So by instituting strict requirements on when and how landlords can make claims on a tenants security deposit AB 2801 will protect California's most vulnerable tenants and promote equal access to housing. So on behalf of GenUp, UCSA, Yi Otta and the Student Homes Coalition affiliates, I respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. One quick question before we turn the next speaker. When I lived on Glenrock a few years ago, rents were $83 a month. Have they gone up?

They certainly have. Yes.

Curious. All right, thank you. All right, thank you.

Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but let's form a quorum here because I know there's other committees that are. That are also meeting. So. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the role for purpose of establishing a quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Your patience. Go ahead.

Of course. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Alejandra Romo. I'm a Member of Power California Action here today in strong support of 2801. AB 2801. I was born in Aguascalientes, Mexico. I moved to Los Angeles when I was one year old.

I currently live in Culver City and am a rising senior at California State Long Beach, which .. Umberg represents. AB 2801 is so important for young Californian renters. At the end of 2023, my friend Rebecca experienced the frustration of unfair security deposit deductions. Before moving out of her apartment, she met with management for an inspection.

She emptied out the apartment as much as she could to ensure the most accurate inspection. Management assured her that as that they saw no damages and as long as she cleaned the apartment, she would receive her full deposit. Even though she left the apartment cleaner than when she first moved in, she only received 54% of her deposit back and $30 was deducted for carpet cleaning, professional cleaning and labor.

If AB 2801 existed, she would have received her full deposit back because her belongings were removed for inspection and no repairs or cleanings were listed in the itemized statement during the inspection. We deserve to have our security deposits returned to us when we move out of an apartment as long as we keep it in good shape.

Many renters depend on the return of their security deposit to be able to afford to move to another apartment. Thats why support AB 2801. With these additional protections, renters can avoid undue financial burdens getting back their security deposit. Security deposits should serve their intended purpose to protect landlords from damages, not to have renters subsidized upgrades. AB 2801 is leveling the playing field and creating transparency for renters and landlords alike in California. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Others in support, please approach microphone. Give us your name, your position, your affiliation. Seeing. zero, go ahead.

Neha Sachu, on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 2801 seeing no one else approaches the microphone, if you're opposed AB 2801, please approach the microphone. Floors yours.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members. Karim Drissi, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors here today with an opposed, unless amended position on AB 2801. AB 2801 imposes several new requirements on small housing providers.

We only take exception to one change that is being made by the Bill for the damage done to the unit by a tenant. Existing law provides that a housing provider may claim of the security deposit only those amounts as are reasonably necessary.

AB 2801 changes existing law by explicitly specifying that repairs made by a contractor to fix damage done to the unit by a tenant shall be limited to a reasonable cost amount. Small housing providers don't control contractor pricing, and this new language effectively limits a small housing provider's ability to have repairs made properly.

This new language regarding work performed by a contractor will create confusion in the marketplace for both small housing providers and tenants and in turn will lead to increased litigation until such time as the Bill is amended. To remove this language, we respectfully request a no vote on AB 2801.

And lastly, I would just respectfully note that repairs that are reasonably necessary, which is existing statute, is quite different than repairs costing a reasonable amount. And so we do look forward to continuing to work with the author and hopefully this language will be removed. But at this time, we do ask for a no vote.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right, others in opposition to AB 2801, seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Committee Members have questions. Seeing no questions. Senator Durazo has moved the Bill. Senator Caballero has a question.

I just have a question in regards to the request by the realtors. Have you had that issue raised before? And if you did, what was your thinking in terms of the difference between reasonably necessary and reasonable cost amount?

Yeah, so necessary. Reasonably necessary refers to the need for the repair, which a lot of people would agree to, but it's not reasonable if somebody is getting price gouged or if they are being forced to upgrade the apartment.

And this actually came out of my staffers experience where they claimed that there was damage to a window blind and he could have gone to Home Depot. He looked it up. The same blind was about $100 and they wanted to Bill him $900. So that's why we came up with the standard.

It shouldn't be that the security deposits used as a piggy bank to upgrade an apartment and we have to have some guardrails. Otherwise a contractor could say, well, what's the security deposit? $4,000. Okay. The repair costs $4,000. We need to have. And the language is already in the law in terms of reasonable. So we were trying to avoid what we're hearing from many people is a common problem and we're willing to keep working with them, of course.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.

All right, thank you. Other questions? Comments? Senator Durazo is moved. Bill, thank you very much. Senator Friedman, working with us on this. I know we tried to work with some of the stakeholders in terms of the timing of photographs, demonstrating repairs. We never quite got there.

And whether or not the tenant need request or not request or whether it's automatic. And I understand that you are amenable to continuing to work on that issue. It was my mind that if there was no request, no need, that that was just an unnecessary burden. But we never came quite to any sort of understanding. But I'm grateful that you're going to continue to work on that issue.

Of course. Thank you so much for your recommendation on the Bill. I will just point out that if there's no claim on the security deposit, nobody has to give photos.

But we do think that, you know, for these kids, really, a lot of them, these students particularly, it's so easy to give a digital photograph these days that if you're going to say, hey, there's dollar 400 of damage to something, give them a photo so they can see what it is.

Apparently Kodak doesn't develop quite as quickly as in any event, so. All right, Senator also has moved the Bill. Would you like to close?

Just. I appreciate an aye vote we see that there is a, you know, definitely a need here. We're not trying to create new law. We're just trying to make everybody understand the parameters on the existing law, both for the benefit of the tenants and the landlords.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

6-1. We'll put that on call. All right. I see Assembly Member Gabriel here. I also see Assembly Member Kalra here. So we're gonna take Assembly Member. Well, you know what? Our practice has been taking the, the chair. But I see that Assemblymember Karla is being right, quite right, quite accommodating. So. All right.

Member Gabriel, AB 2505, file number eight.

Thank you very much, Mister chair and Members. And thank you to Assembly Member Kalra for your graciousness. And I also want to thank the chair and Committee staff for their thoughtful assistance on this measure. And just start off by saying we're happy to accept the Committee amendments.

I am pleased today to present AB 2505, which would require attorneys in California to report whether they provided pro Bono legal services in the prior year.

Pro Bono is a powerful tool to achieve justice, particularly for Low income Californians, and unfortunately, California has fallen behind other states in expanding access to justice, and our legal aid providers here in the state are both overburdened and underutilized. Other states have already established pro-bono reporting requirements for pro-bono.

In fact, Florida was the first state to implement a pro-bono reporting requirement in 1993, and since then, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, and numerous other states have joined them. This reporting that we are proposing today will be confidential with no penalty for failing to report or for reporting 0 hour.

But the data collected will be provided to the state bar and the Access to Justice Commission and legal aid providers, which will be very helpful for them as they design and tailor better policy solutions to deliver access to justice to communities across the state.

The proposed rule has been developed in close cooperation with the state bar and is supported by the California Access to Justice Commission, the Legal Aid Association of, California, and numerous legal service nonprofits up and down the state. It has no registered opposition.

With me here today, I have Jenni Gomez-Haddad, the pro-bono manager at Legal Services of Northern California, and Lori Klein, the Legislative Director at the Legal Aid Association of California, to speak more about the measure. Thank you, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Go ahead. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon. My name is Lauren Klein and I am the Director of Advocacy at the Legal Aid Association of California, and we are sponsors of AB 2505. My organization represents the network of state, state funded nonprofit organizations that provide free civil legal assistance to low income people and communities in California, despite the amazing work done by legal aid, there remains a staggering amount of unmet need. For that reason, we rely on pro-bono attorneys to help us meet the needs of our client communities.

This Bill will support the legal aid community in closing the justice gap in a couple of important ways. First, it will increase pro-bono volunteerism. While this Bill does not make pro-bono service mandatory, as that would be unfair to attorneys and clients alike, by requiring attorneys to report their pro-bono time, it will raise their awareness and remind them of how much work they've actually done.

This will motivate lawyers who genuinely aspire to do pro-bono work but may have fallen out of the habit. Second, it will give legal aid data that we can use to improve the pro-bono ecosystem. Currently, we have no way of knowing how many or which attorneys do pro-bono or how much.

With statewide data, we can understand the demographics of pro-bono do more women do pro-bono work than men? Do attorneys do more pro-bono work at the beginning of their career or the end of their career? Do attorneys in one region of the state do more pro-bono work than in another?

Having this data will allow us to hone our outreach strategies and to design better pro-bono service delivery systems. We know that not everyone can do pro-bono work, but with data we can understand the barriers that exist and how we could mitigate or overcome them. This Bill provides a simple way to expand access to civil legal services and will play an important role in closing the justice gap in California. We respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next witness

Chair Umberg and Members of the Committee. My name is Jenni Gomez-Haddad, and I'm a pro-bono manager at Legal Services of Northern California, LSNC. On behalf of LSNC, I support AB 2505. As a practicing legal aid attorney for more than a decade, I know firsthand that legal aid providers are overburdened.

We are only able to help a fraction of individuals and families who need legal help. We rely on pro-bono attorneys to help us meet the needs of our client communities. I will never forget the crucial role pro-bono attorneys played in the aftermath of the devastating paradise campfire located in our service area.

While staff from all eight of our offices worked overtime to assist survivors, it simply was not enough. Pro-bono attorneys jumped into action, providing know your rights presentations, attending clinics, and taking on limited and full scope cases where LSNC did not have the capacity or expertise.

We hope that the reporting requirement will produce data highlighting pro Bono gaps and opportunities in an effort to increase access to justice for all Californians. For example, many of California's practicing attorneys are concentrated in the state's urban centers.

Yet we at Lisnic have offices in our Far north service area where only two or three legal aid attorneys represent indigent clients in multiple counties. If a pro Bono attorney so chooses, they can make a wonderful and necessary difference across the state, and especially in high need legal aid regions like mine.

I appreciate that this Bill provides a positive incentive to engage in pro Bono work without mandating attorneys to do so. The legal aid community acknowledges that pro-bono work is not the only solution to California's justice gap, but it is definitely an essential part of the solution. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else in support opposition let's turn now to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2505, please.

Good afternoon, Senators. My name is David Bolog, representing the SFE Alliance. Respectfully asking for your no vote. The Bill will bring a chill to lawyers who do not wish to disclose their pro-bono work, who have valid reasons for not wanting to share that information.

The proposed law says that you shall provide your pro Bono and reduce rate service hours, meaning that it is compulsory, although the Bill does not have grounds for disciplinary or Administration recourse. What lawyer is going to lie or admit information required when paying for the renewal of their license to practice?

When the instruction says that you must charity and giving is a very personal act. Some lawyers may thrive on pro-bono work while others had horrible experience with it. Or a person may be in a position not to be able to give at that time. Charity is best given because a person wants to.

Worse when it's a feeling of obligation. Doing so under the feeling you should causes resentment, and this situation may result in a lawyer doing a poor job for their pro-bono clients. How exactly is knowing how much work is done?

Pro-bono will inspire other work others to do work when they are doing exactly the amount they wish to. Already the author states that practicing law is privileged. It must be recognized that a bar license is not just given to a lawyer. That person had to work very hard and make great sacrifices to achieve that license.

From the schooling, studying, and the agonizing bar exam to continuous education and having to pay for malpractice insurance. Being a lawyer is earned, and it's very expensive. Lawyers may be doing pro-bono work where they are not comfortable revealing that information to anywhere.

They may do work paid for a conservative firm and do free work for liberal causes and don't want their employers to know. The Bill doesnt require that you say where you are doing the work, but if found out you are doing x amount of hours, people might want to look into where you are spending your extra time.

The Bill does state that the information shall remain confidential. But we have all received notices saying that our data has been breached. Who is to say that the state databases wont be compromised? Will it even be noticed or reported? If it is, there are many ways for data to get out. The best way of stopping this is not to collect it at all.

Thank you. Others in opposition, AB 2505 seeing no one approaching questions by Committee Members comments motion? Yes, Senator Allen?

Well, I just want to, I do share some of the concerns raised by the opposition. It's my understanding that there was an amendment taken. I think, quite frankly, it was a very important amendment suggested by the California Lawyers Association allowing for folks to say, declined to state.

So that, so I think that addresses, I mean, I understand, I'm sure, given the tenor of your comments, that you'd preferred not to see the Bill at all. But that for me was a really important change because I do agree that this could be used and misused. There could be some of the chilling impacts that were raised by the opposition. But I just want to confirm that my understanding is correct.

So there were two amendments taken in the Committee. One was, I think, an excellent suggestion that the information, to ensure the confidentiality and to have a higher level of confidentiality, that this information can't be disclosed pursuant to a Public Records Act request.

So that will further ensure that there's confidentiality and then also give the State Bar the flexibility, as you mentioned, so that for folks who don't want to push, they'd just be able to decline to answer as a way of reporting.

So. Okay. So the State Bar would, would give the authorization. It doesn't provide it as a required option.

No. And part of this is, you know, in our conversations with them to preserve the appropriate amount of flexibility for them to, you know, administer this as they want it. So it provides flexibility for them to do so. But it doesn't require it.

Well, just to be clear, let me, if you don't mind if I interject, there is no penalty for failing to respond, correct? Thank you.

Yeah, but it's mandatory.

Are you asking me that question or are you asking Assemblymember Gabriel? It is mandatory, but there's no penalty for failing to report.

Yeah, but as a lawyer, I mean, legal ethics.

You know, I'm going to ask you, Senator Allen, to direct your question to Assembly Member Gabriel.

I mean, legal ethics would require a lawyer to carry out mandatory rules of the state. The lack of a penalty. I don't know that that's...

Let me just say there's, the information is absolutely confidential and we've taken additional information to protect the confidentiality of that information. There's no penalty for failing to report and there's also no penalty for failing to report zero hours.

Maybe just to bring us up a level of generality here in terms of that, hopefully will assuage some of your concerns. Senator, we are not inventing this from scratch. California is not going to be the first state to do this. There are numerous red and blue states that are already doing this.

They've seen a lot of success. As I mentioned, it was the State of Florida first did this in 1993. So quite some time ago. And you have red states like Indiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana that have done this. You have blue states like Connecticut and Washington and Illinois that have done this.

Maryland, and I think everybody has seen success who's done it. There have not been a record of complaints. And that's why this is something that folks are practitioners are encouraging

How have those states handled this decline to state option, because for me, when I, maybe I misunderstood, but for me that was an important option. Many people wouldn't take it. But those who want to, for the kind of legitimate privacy reasons raised, could have that option without any immediate kind of obvious, appropriate. So how have those other states that you just mentioned dealt with the decline of state possibility?

I think each of them have. I don't know for sure. My sense is that folks have done things slightly differently in different states, but I just think we haven't, you know, those who have what I would consider to be a very light touch approach, which is encourage people to report these hours without penalty.

Without penalty have seen success and have not seen a lot of problems. And I don't know if either of the witnesses want to speak to that, but I'm not aware of issues in other states where they have encouraged folks to do this.

I can just share that. That's correct. We haven't seen problems with this in other states. They've generally just been able to get data that has then gone to good use. In fact, other states often require more than what we're asking for here. As Assemblymember Gabriel said, this is a light touch. In other states, they ask for things like how much money has been donated to causes and additional things that we're not asking for here with this Bill.

Okay, look, I want to support the author. I think your broader goals are very meritorious. I would like to just put in a plug for ensuring that decline to state is a real option. I don't think that most lawyers would use it or would want to use it, but I do think there are some cases where it would be important and I just wouldn't want to see the bar have this option but not utilize it. And I think there's a reason why the Lawyers Association brought this issue forward.

And so I just want to, I hope that you'll consider in working with the Committee to ensure that it's not just a, it's not just a recommendation, it's not just an authorization, but a real option that's put in front of lawyers should this Bill pass.

Thank you, Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mister chair. Well, I want to echo my concerns, the concerns that Senator Allen raised and, and just say that one of my biggest frustrations has been, well, one of my biggest frustrations is that during the COVID era, I could not find a lawyer to save my life that would do eviction defense cases in the Central Valley when the situations were really egregious, landlords were taking advantage of, of poor people and evicting them for not paying the rent.

And as you know, we passed legislation that protected them for a significant amount of time and we put money on the table as well. And when we had significant flooding in Planada, I couldn't find anybody to represent farmworkers that had been flooded enough so they lost everything they had in their house, including their vehicles, and were unemployed during that time. So I'm all for, and I started my career, my legal career as a legal aid lawyer working for CRLA.

So for me not to be able to find somebody was just really horrendous. And so I'm all in favor of getting information to maybe encourage attorneys to do pro-bono work. I mean, it's critically important in the community.

I could find people that would come in and do, I know your legal rights, but that doesn't do anything to help people if in fact they can't find an attorney to defend them afterwards. I'm glad to hear other states have found this method to be successful.

I have my doubts, just I'm jaded, I guess, at this point, but I'm willing to give it a try. But I do have the same concerns. I think it really does have to be voluntary because that our ethics tell us you have to give up information when you're asked for it, and especially if it's the State Bar.

When you're renewing your license, nobody wants to mess with the state bar. So I think there's a need to be able to say you have the absolute right, and somewhere on the form it gives you that right not to either identify yourself or not to give the information. But I'm going to support you Bill today.

Thank you, Senator. All right. Other questions, comments saying no other. Yes, Senator Ashby. oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, Senator Wahab moves the Bill. All right. Okay. Thank you. Assembly Member Gabriel. I think this is really important, Bill.

I'll move the Bill.

I think being a Member of profession, and I know you are a Member of the profession, that part of that obligation is providing community service in one form or another and reminding lawyers that pro-bono work is really important, both for the community and the profession. I think that this does its job.

I heard what my colleagues said from the Central Valley, Senator Caballero, about how difficult it was to find pro-bono lawyers during the pandemic. I'm hoping that should we suffer another situation like we had during the pandemic, that this will actually encourage more folks to stay step up. Last fall, I represented someone in an unlawful detainer action.

It was incredibly informative to me as Chair of Judiciary, as to how things are working or not working. So having said that, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you very much. And I just want to thank my colleagues here in the Senate for a robust conversation. And I know, you know, I remember actually sitting around being a young attorney and talking to you when you were just a slightly older attorney about some of the very meaningful experiences that you had in doing pro-bono.

And I know, Senator Caballero, we look with a lot of admiration about how you started your career doing legal services and how important those are. And I will take this feedback very seriously if it does help to assuage some of the concerns.

We have actually consulted with many national law firms that have folks in a lot of states where this is already required who are in support of this measure. You can see letters from national firms like Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, and others who have thought that this to be a good idea.

Talk to Senator Allen with David Lash at O'Melvenie and Myers as we are structuring this Bill. So there's a lot of folks who have seen this work in other states and who think it would be a helpful thing here in California.

And I guess I'll just close with what Senator Umberg says and quote from the Executive Summary of the Judiciary Committee report which says that existing law provides that every lawyer authorized and privileged to practice law in the state is expected to provide voluntary, pro-bono legal services to those who cannot afford the help of a lawyer.

So this is part of the obligation that we take on. It's part of the expectation when we get a bar card. So I don't think folks will be surprised, but I do think you have raised some points for us to consider, and we promise to consider them. And with that, would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

8-1. We're gonna put that on call. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, next Chari Kalra. This is our last bill today. I know that sounds amazing. This is our last Bill today. All right. So I encourage. I think we're short one Member that after Assemblymember Kalra presents his Bill, and assuming a vote is taken, that we will lift calls. So. Okay. And we'll do the consent calendar after this Bill. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair. Assembly Bill 3283 is a Judiciary Committee Bill on claims of exemption. This Bill proposes a minor procedural fixed to a critical issue in debt collection cases.

Under existing law, when a debtor appears in court to file a claim of exemption, essentially seeking protection for certain assets from being collected to pay a judgment is considered a General appearance. This seemingly small act, however, has significant consequences.

By merely showing up to protect their exempt property, debtors unintentionally surrendered their ability to challenge the court's jurisdiction in the underlying debt collection case, even if they were improperly served or are not the correct party. This Bill offers a simple yet crucial solution to this unfair situation.

It ensures that appearing for a claim of exemption hearing does not equate to consenting to the court's jurisdiction for the entire case. Instead, this Bill would limit the court's authority solely to determining the claim of exemption. This means that debtors can still seek exemption from collection without forfeiting their right to challenge the validity of the underlying judgment based on jurisdictional issues,.

This Bill does not eliminate lawful debts. Rather, it protects the fundamental principle of due process by allowing debtors to challenge the court's jurisdiction if they were improperly served or mistakenly identified by safeguarding this right, we aim to prevent unjust judgments and ensure fairness in our legal system.

I have with me Desirée Nguyen Orth, the Director of the East Bay Community Law Center's Consumer Justice Clinic, to testify and answer any technical questions.

Good afternoon.

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. I'm Desirée Nguyen Orth, Director of the Consumer Justice Practice at East Bay Community Law center and lecturer at Berkeley Law AB 3283 is a nonpartisan correction to the Code of Civil Procedure as it is currently written, Section 703.5580.

The claim of exemption constitutes the pleadings subject to the power of the court to permit amendments in the interest of justice. This tramples the basic due process rights of people who are not properly served and find themselves to be the subject of enforcement through a default judgment.

At this juncture, a claimant has two options, either a forego a claim of exemption and bear the burden of enforcement while seeking to set aside or forfeit their right to due process in order to stop the bleeding of the ill gotten judgment by proceeding with a necessary claim of exemption.

Under the first option, a person must be able to live under wage garnishment or bank levy enforcement for several months. The filing procedures to have a motion heard varies from county to county, with many having openings not earlier than three months out. This is incredibly long for people who live paycheck to paycheck.

In this situation, the person is subsidizing the state when they pursue their due process rights. Under the second option, a person surrenders their right to proper service in the name of cauterizing a financial wound. In doing so, the person gives up their rights to set aside using a special appearance.

And the issue is made moot because the current language is explicit about the treatment of the claim of exemption as a pleading. Before I answer any questions today, I'd like to address some common misconceptions. Will this Bill incentivize people to ignore service or dodge service? No.

This Bill does not change the status of jurisdiction on a person who is properly served. Properly served includes substitute service, so the colloquial dodging is nearly impossible. The change that we seek only lets through the fish that should not be in the net in the first place.

It does nothing for people who are properly under the jurisdiction of the court. Additionally, there will be bad actors in nearly all avenues where it is possible to evade the law. This minority is not a valid reason to continue to deny due process rights to the majority of people in the system.

If anything, the current law incentivizes the rampant sewer service that we see today. And it is a windfall for many plaintiffs. Two, why don't people just get a set aside?

Go ahead and wrap it up.

Yes, to get a set aside requires a lot of legal know how. It is not something that I could ever advise a client to do themselves. It takes months to go through the process, then have a motion heard. All while the money is draining from a person's pocket.

Alrighty. Thank you very much Thank you. Okay, others in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Dana Dabbousi from EBCLC and Berkeley Law, and I support.

Thank you. Others in support.

Mandy Tarogovin, on behalf of East Bay Community Law Center, I support.

Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, those who are opposed, please approach. If you're opposed to AB 3283, saying no one approaches my phone, let's bring it back. Committee Member, questions? Yes, Senator Wahab. Senator Wahab has moved the Bill, seeing no other questions. So, Mister chair, would you like to close?

Respectfully asked for an aye vote. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Eight to two. We're gonna put that on call here for a little bit. Thank you very much, Mister chair. All right, we've heard all the bills. Let's do this. Let's wait another. I hear the door opening.

We need to do consent and file item three.

Yes. All right, let's do this. Let's do the consent calendar, Senator Roth. Okay. All right, let's do. Let's do. The consent calendar is there. Senator Laird has moved the consent calendar. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

10-0. We're gonna put that on call. All right, let's go to item number three by assemblymember Cervantes. Senator Laird has moved the Bill. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

8-2. We're gonna put that on call.

[Roll Call]

8-2. We'll put that on call.

[Roll Call]

We'll put that on call. All right, so we're going to recess here for a few moments for other Committee Members to appear. Now we're going to lift calls on all the bills. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

11-0. The consent calendar is adopted.

[Roll Call]

9-2 bills out.

[Roll Call]

All right, thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Roth. Oh, the Bill is out. There we go. That concludes our business today. We will reconvene next Tuesday at 130. Yes, okay. All right, thank you. All.