Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Complete our agenda. Allow everyone equal time rules to witness testimony or each side will be allowed two main witnesses. Each witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the bill. Additional witnesses should state only their names, organization, if any, and and their position on the bill.

As we proceed with witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands the Committee has rules to ensure a fair and efficient hearing in order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided again only at the designated time and limited to your name, organization and support or opposition of a bill before the Committee. Comments and other issues will be ruled out of order and the microphone may be disconnected. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal from the hearing or other enforcement processes. We do not have quorum, but we'll go ahead and proceed as a Subcommitee and start with Senator Umberg who has several bills before us. I believe Senator going to be starting with file item three, SB253, is that correct?

That's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I have before you SB253, which is the annual State Bar Fee Bill. We are not increasing fees this year, but we are changing the law a bit with respect to the state bar. As I think you know, state bars had some challenges.

We've had some challenges with respect to the discipline system that you and I have worked on for the last few years, Mr. Chair. And this past February there was a complete meltdown in terms of the Administration of the State's bar exam.

In that vein, this bill also provides in addition to a fee which is the same as last year, it provides that changing a vendor of the multiple choice questions constitutes a substantial modification the bar exam and any such change requires two year notice to the public.

And it also says that we're going to go back to the old school method of delivering the state bar exam, particularly for the bar exam that's coming up next next month. These changes are intended to provide some stability and some clarity, particularly for applicants.

Sadly, there were a number of individuals who were victimized and remedies are very, very limited as to what we can do for those who have been victimized. My heart as a Member of the profession, my heart goes out to them and I know the bar has taken some steps to ameliorate or mitigate.

But there are only certain things that can be done. And with that, Mr. Chair, I. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 253? No. Okay.

Everyone's afraid. Yeah.

Is there anyone here in opposition to SB253? All right, bring it back to Committee. Any questions or comments for Chair Umberg? Oh yeah.

Madam Vice Chair, thank you.

I applaud what you're doing. We've talked about this, and thank you for doing it. And it needs to be done. And let's move forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

May I be a co-author?

Sure. Yeah.

All right.

Thank you, Senator Harabedian. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing the bill. As a Member of the bar, very much appreciate it. Obviously, when we have a quorum, I will happily move the bill, but just appreciate you doing this on behalf of all the attorneys out there. So thank you.

I also want to offer my thanks and as well as the.

The Vice Chair, who very soon after the February debacle, you know, reached out and I know, I think, to both of our offices to ensure that we do the best we can to rectify the situation and more importantly going forward, ensure that we don't have the same situation arise in the future.

And just one clarification to asking if you were accepting the Committee amendments. Zero, I'm sorry.

Yes, we are.

Thank you. zero, thank you very much. When we get the opportunity, we'll go ahead and make that motion. And in the meantime, we'll go on to your next bill.

All righty. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for your interest in this important area. In terms of referring to the previous bill, the Administration State Bar Exam, and the Administration of California State Bar and Assembly Member Dixon. I know this is an area of keen interest for you and your spouse, and I appreciate your support.

Next bill up is SB25, the Pre Merger Notification Act. I want to thank Sherene Zohar for her help on this bill. The merger review process is a critical part of any antitrust law enforcement activity against anti competitive mergers. SB25 would make the merger review process more efficient to the benefit of both law enforcement agencies and businesses.

Current federal antitrust law under the Hart Scott Rodino act requires that parties engaging in merger file notices with the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. These notices detail information such as corporate structure and presentations about the merger presented to the company's board of directors.

By giving access to these notices Antitrust agencies are better able to engage with merging parties during the merger review process by allowing the agencies to scrutinize and challenge mergers and acquisitions before they are finalized.

However, state attorneys General do not have access to these notices because of the confidential requirement of Hart Scott Rodino and so must subpoena the notices. The subpoena process is in and of itself time consuming disadvantaging to the state attorneys General and creates uncertainty for merging parties.

What SB25 does is creates a smoother, more efficient merger review process by providing AG with earlier access to these filings. And the purpose is, if there's an issue, better to identify that issue sooner and up front rather than later on. This actually, if the merger is appropriate, expedites the process.

With me in support of the bill is Mr. Dan Robbins on behalf of the Uniformed Law Commission which is the sponsor of this bill.

Thank you, please.

Great. Thank you. Senator, good morning. So I'm Dan Robbins. I'm a Commissioner on the California Commission for Uniform State Laws and also the immediate past president of the National Uniform Law Commission. We brought you bills in the past, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and many other successful bills.

As the Senator explained, today the state and the Federal Government have equal footing to enforce our federal merger law, the Clayton Act. But the state doesn't get the Hart Scott Rodino filings the Senator mentioned. So we're at a significant disadvantage to protecting our citizens. We don't get the notices. So we might find out about these transactions.

Months late. A long time ago, I was at the AG's office where we found out about a merger between the number one and number four supermarkets of our state. You might remember Lucky and Alpha Beta. The Federal Trade Commission made a deal that we weren't part of.

So we had to commence a lawsuit, went to the Supreme Court. We spent a lot of taxpayer money, got a good result, but it was completely wasteful and unnecessary.

The Senator's bill resolves those problems by requiring any party to a merger that has its principal place of business in our state or does more than 24 million in net sales in our state to share those filings with our AG's office so we can be part of the process early on.

Lastly, the bill has confidentiality protections that are strong because we don't want this business information in the LA Times or some other newspaper. So the AG's office is required to take a number of steps to preserve that confidentiality. And so in closing, both the California Commission and the Uniform Law Commission strongly support SB25. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB25? Is there anyone here in opposition to SB25? Right.

Good morning. Paymon Roshan here. There's a recent US Supreme Court opinion that occurred, Williams v. Reed. Apologies for being a little out of breath. That was in February. Now, we presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee an analysis that shows that that Supreme Court opinion has rendered the state bars procedure. We're on a different bill.

No, this is SB25. That's okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions or comments? Yes, Madam Vice Chair.

Putting on my had from my corporate experience and going through several mergers and acquisitions for company headquartered corporate, headquartered in Delaware, but headquartered also in the State of California, going through the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission. That's normal. Course, that took long enough.

Is this bill going to just add another layer of review and filings and fees and how working together with the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade and or the Federal Trade Commission, is that going to be in concert?

So I'll respond, then I'll let Mr. Robbins correct me. What this Bill does is it doesn't add another layer of bureaucracy to the process. What it does is it says that you go through basically both processes at the same time.

So the state AG gets notice at the same time that the Federal Government gets notice as they're doing their analysis. The state can do its analysis versus the current procedure is that the Federal Government, the ftc, Department of Justice, they do their analysis. They say it's okay.

Presumably then the state says, okay, let us take a look at it. Let us take another year to review. So the theory is that both are notified at nearly the same time that they can do them in tandem. I'll ask Mr. Robbins to correct me now.

Zero, no, that's entirely accurate. And from a, from a business perspective, when you're entering into a merger or doing an acquisition, what you want is certainty. You want it to be complete. You don't want to make your omelet and have somebody come and tell you to unscramble it.

And so what we're doing here is to try to have all the people who have the authority to challenge it involved at once and get one decision.

Sort of in contrast to what happened in the case I mentioned is from the late 80s, but the lucky Alpha Beta merger, we, you know, from their perspective, they got their approval from the Federal Trade Commission and they thought they were done. And then California sued later that year. And that case went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two years of additional uncertainty. It's not good for them. They want to know their deal is done. They want to integrate all their assets and move forward and compete as 11 entity. So I think there's. There's benefits for. For both sides. It reduces the duplication.

Well, okay, just playing this out. So if the US Department of Justice supports the merger and the Federal Trade Commission supports the merger, but the State of California, even going through a parallel process simultaneously, says, well, we're not so sure, so they could still act unilaterally to delay the merger. State of California, Yeah.

What happened? So, going back to our case, what happened in our case is we. I was just a clerk at the AG's office in the 80s, but we wanted some additional divestitures of certain stores so there'd be more competition in some California towns, and the Federal Government neglected to do that.

So once, you know, eventually we got that. But I think if we were together, we would have said, look, this is our state. Here's a couple places you may not be aware of. We need divestitures in those states to ensure that there's more than one supermarket in the town.

And the goal is that the Federal Government would work with us. We'd come up with one answer. But. But you're right. It's possible that we might not agree with the Federal Government and the state would still be able to sue to block the merger if. If that were the case.

But, you know, going back to the case I mentioned, I think if we had been involved, all that expense would have been avoided and the deal would have closed a lot sooner because we. We did allow the deal to close. It's just there were some things that. That the Federal Government had missed, in our view.

Okay, so you've been watching this for all these years since that case and hoping that there would be some reform, and this could possibly be the answer to that. Okay. All right.

Thank you very much, Senator haribates.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to build on that, I do think that the Vice Chair's question is a good one, and I'm not sure that your answer fully delved into what she was getting at.

I think that, to be clear, this is merely making sure that the documents that are being provided to the Federal Government are being provided to the state AG's office. However, the state AG's office does not have any statutory or constitutional authority to block a merger. The same authority that the Federal Government, the ftc, has, correct?

No, no, that's incorrect. So the federal law is the Clayton act, and when it was written in 1914, the authors actually put directly in it that the Federal Government can enforce and the states can enforce as well. So we're on equal footing with the Federal Government under the. Under the federal law.

It's just we don't get the background materials to do our job.

If that's the case, why do you have to file a lawsuit? Why does the state AG have to file a lawsuit to do that, whereas the Federal Government merely just doesn't approve the merger?

No, they would have to file a lawsuit, too. So the way it works at the federal agencies is you submit your materials and, you know, 98% of the time they say, fine, 2% of the time they ask for more materials. And then in some subset, like, for example, Kroger Albertsons, they actually sue. And so.

But to enforce the Clayton act, they actually have to go to court. And this allows the parties due process and the ability to defend themselves and say, hey, this is actually competitive and this will help consumers and workers, you know, missing the point. So as part of their due process rights, they can go to court.

Got it. Yeah. Well, thank you for clarifying. I thought that actually HSR approval was an administrative function to where it's either given or it isn't. And you actually didn't have to file a claim. The Federal Government didn't actually have to file a claim. They would just not approve it. So I appreciate the question.

Just want to follow up to make sure that I understood it. So I am going to support the bill, and I appreciate the testimony. So. So thank you.

Well, thank you very much. Again, we think we need one more in order to establish quorum, and we can take up any motions then. Would you like to close, sir?

I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. And then you have item two, SB36.

SB 36 is the Bill that strengthens California's price gouging laws. I want to thank Saran Zohar and the Committee for their work on this Bill. This—by the way, I will accept the Committee's amendments. In the wake of the devastating firestorms that swept through Southern California, in January of 2025, there are reports of price gouging.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who came and assisted and aided, but there were a few who took advantage of this disaster and engaged in price gouging, particularly as it relates to sheltering opportunities and housing opportunities.

Much like during the Pandemic, folks exploited the circumstance to be able to raise prices beyond that which would be conscionable.

And what this does is it requires, for example, listing platforms—platforms that list rental properties—to, if they know that there's price gouging that is occurring, they're required to alert local, regional, or state law enforcement as to the price gouging.

It also provides consumers the ability to file actions against price gougers and authorizes public prosecutors the ability to obtain warrants for price gouging violations related to housing, lodging, and rental violations. With me to testify in support of the Bill is Savina Takar on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Savina Takar, the Consumer Attorneys of California, here to express our strong support for SB 36. California's communities are facing compounding disasters from wildfires to floods, and in the aftermath, we're seeing vulnerable residents exploited by extreme housing price gouging. Some families have been charged thousands above standard rent when they're already displaced in a crisis.

SB 36 is a critical response. It strengthens civil penalties, empowers victims to take legal action, brings online platforms into the fold with reporting requirements, and coordinates with law enforcement. It also expands protection system displacement that often pushes people out to other counties.

These are smart, targeted reforms that close dangerous loopholes and ensure Californians aren't victimized in moments of extreme need. We urge your "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 36?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Rather Group, on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 36?

Mr. Chairman, Oracio Gonzalez, on behalf of California's Business Roundtable. We do apologize to the author and the Committee. Our, our letter was not in on time to be reflected in the analysis, but we are in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Back to Committee, any questions or comments? Assemblymember Harabedian.

Just want to thank the author for the Bill, obviously representing one of the areas affected by the fires. Let's be totally clear, price gouging has occurred from day one. It is still occurring.

And there have been very few ways for consumers who are being taken advantage of in the housing market or otherwise to actually ameliorate the situation and get relief. This Bill helps. I think it's a very—it's a very elegant solution. I think we need to do more.

And I do think the problem, and I've said it before with similar bills, is there is a perverse incentive because those being victimized need the housing, they need the service, whatever they're paying for.

And they have this choice of either foregoing the house, which they're being gouged on, and trying to find a place for them and their kids to sleep, or taking the price, which is unfair.

And I think that we need to figure out a way in which more of the cases of the gouging are reported and acted upon by the whichever authority needs to act upon it, where it isn't incumbent on the victim necessarily to give up the service or the place that they're trying to live to do that.

So, I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I hope that it deters more bad actors. I'm not convinced it will. I'm not convinced it will because of that reporting mechanism, and I think the perverse incentive and disincentive that that exists, but I appreciate the offer for doing this and appreciate the testimony.

Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. And again, we're awaiting—well, now we're awaiting Senate authors as well as Members to establish a quorum. We'll call on the Senators that still have yet to present to please make their way to Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Well, while we're waiting, I know we have a gentleman here that was probably stuck with the metal detectors as we were hearing the first item that was heard today, SB253. So if you'd like to, I'd be happy to give you two minutes to put whatever comments you have on the record. I know you're.

You were showing up with concerns about the bar bill, so go ahead.

Yes, thank you very much. So the United Supreme Court, in February. Excuse me. In a case Williams v. Reed decided.

That is mic. Is the mic on? Oh, it is on. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Oh, yeah. Why don't you have some water?

Appreciate it. Williams v. Reed is a case that we presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and also by letter to this Committee is a case that decided that if a state does not provide a method for people to bring 42 USC 1983 actions, that that's a violation of the Supremacy Clause.

And that is directly at issue in the mechanisms that the state bar through their courts and the Supreme Court has established in not allowing such actions. And so, really, the state bar as an institution all the way through the California Supreme Court is violating the Supremacy Clause and is therefore unconstitutional.

And it's our position that this Committee, and also the Senate Judiciary Committee, though apparently they took no action, should have the Legislative Council analyze the Supreme Court's decision in the context of how it should alter the mechanisms within the state to provide those that either are going to challenge admissions or discipline within the state bar structure to either have some mechanism through the state bar, or alternatively, like Texas has established, to have a mechanism through the superior courts where people can challenge using that federal statute.

Well, thank you. Thank you for taking the time to be here. And even in the analysis, your concerns are also noted. And. And so thank you so much. Thank you kindly. Yeah, we do. All right, Madam Secretary, if we can establish quorum, please.

[Roll call]

Okay, so we have a quorum. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar? Can I have roll call on the consent calendar, please?

[Roll call]

Consent calendars out. And if we can have a motion on file, item 1, SB25. Umberg. Second. We have a motion and a second.

Motions do pass to Appropriations. Kalra.

Aye.

[Roll call]

Okay, we'll place that bill on call. Item two, SB36. Umberg. I'll move it. We have a motion and a second motion is due.

[Roll call]

Place that on call. And then item three, SB253, the state bar bill. I'll move it. We have a motion, a motion and a second.

[Roll call]

All right, the bill's out.

Do they have a housing Committee? Karen. Is that why she's.

Got a little.

Okay, so we have. We have with us Senator Allen, who has two bills before the Committee. Senator Allen, which one would you like to start with? Which one would you like to start with? The first one in file order. That's fine. Yeah. Then file item four. SB413. Whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thanks for this opportunity to present SB413. Let me start by accepting the Committee amendments, and I just want to thank the Committee staff for, for her hard work on the bill, so thank you.

Okay, so this bill seeks to streamline access to juvenile records in limited circumstances in order to speed up case resolution, while also at the same time ensuring privacy protections for sensitive information. Under current law, our Welfare and institutions code, Section 827, limits access to juvenile court records. Juvenile records in General, actually, and information.

By listing the parties who are entitled to access case files. Other parties must petition the Juvenile Court for permission. Currently, counsel who are representing plaintiffs child welfare agencies or probation departments in government claims and civil litigation are not able to access and use juvenile court records without a petition.

This is all there for privacy reasons, but it's created a whole new set of challenges.

This issue is a problem in spite of the fact that counsel representing clients who themselves have access to the records, then you end up having this significant resource and time suck associated with filing these petitions to get access to the records that oftentimes ends up resulting in all sorts of delays in some cases for more than a year.

In civil suits, the delays are ultimately pretty harmful to to all parties, but certainly plaintiffs as well, who seek redress, a quick redress of their harms. So the courts, the county agencies, plaintiffs counsel, they all incur costs for processing these petitions with the government cost borne by the taxpayers.

And so this bill seeks to streamline case resolution by clarifying the counsel for plaintiffs. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Counsel for all the parties and cases brought by the subject of a juvenile case file may access and use juvenile case files in those proceedings. The bill would help to ensure plaintiffs receive more efficient resolution of their claims.

It also would help reduce litigation costs and court congestion by significantly reducing the number of petitions being filed. And although ensuring efficient resolution of a plaintiff's claim is important and long overdue, the bill doesn't change the redactions required under the Welfare and Institutions Code.

It also includes safeguards for further dissemination of these case files to ensure privacy of the records remains intact. So here from Los Angeles County, we have Katie Bowser, who's the assistant county counsel from the county, to testify in support of the bill. And I'm pleased that the Bill has support from local governments.

And we've also worked really closely with advocates on the plaintiff side. And the consumer attorneys of California and others support the bill as well.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Katie Bowser with the Los Angeles County Council's Office. For 20 years, I've represented LA County's child welfare agency. First access for county councils representing child welfare agencies outside of a dependency proceeding is inconsistently interpreted.

SB413 clarifies that county council may access records to facilitate timely legal advice and support policy improvements in both child welfare and probation enhancing services for all. Second, in lawsuits involving the conduct of the child welfare agency or probation Department, the juvenile case file contains critical evidence needed by all parties.

Currently, attorneys for all parties, including plaintiffs, must petition the juvenile court under Section 827 to access and use the records in litigation. Our county spends $500 to $1,000 to prepare and file one of those petitions. This does not include the costs incurred by the court and the county agencies to gather, review and redact the records.

Once the petition is granted, which it routinely is without objections, these perfunctory petitions overwhelm the juvenile court system, delay civil litigation by a year or more. And negatively impact counties of all sizes. This is not just a problem in LA County and it has been a problem for years, long before AB218 relating to sexual child sexual abuse.

That only exacerbated the problem. And now our county averages approximately 150 new petitions every month. We worked collaboratively with the Commission and the Committee and advocates to draft amendments and preserve confidentiality while promoting fairness and efficiency.

The amended bill is narrowly tailored to only apply when the case is brought by or on behalf of the person who's the subject of the juvenile case file.

And it names the child welfare agency, probation Department or their employee as a defendant. SB 413 honors the confidentiality requirements of 827, including required redactions, enables efficient claim resolution, significantly reduces litigation costs and alleviates court congestion. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

And?

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB413? Name, organization and position on the bill, please?

Hi, Andy Liebenbaum, County of Los Angeles in support and sponsor.

Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Lehr, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa here on behalf of three organizations in support. The Urban Counties of California, the County of Riverside, and the County Welfare Directors Association. Thank you. Thank you.

Travis Legal with the Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SP413? Yeah, you can come up to the desk if you like.

Thank you. Forgive me, I'm a little nervous.

Take your time.

Thank you.

Take your time. As long as it's around 2 minutes.

90 seconds. I got you beat. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I'm Chantel Johnson with the Youth Law Center. While we are greatly appreciative of the sponsors, the Committee staff and the author's office to address our concerns, we remain opposed unless amended to SB413.

SB413 still undermines California's longstanding and vital protections for the confidentiality of juvenile case files. These files contain deeply personal and sensitive information, including health and mental health records, reports of abuse and traumatic life events impacting not just the youth, but their entire families.

SB413 carves out an exception for civil litigation, bypassing juvenile court review for how these sensitive records are used and shared. This removes the Juvenile of Georgia's critical role in weighing privacy against need. While intended to address the backlogs in LA County, this Bill would eliminate youth privacy protection statewide while without evidence of a broader problem.

We're deeply concerned that this will discourage youth from exercising their legal rights for participating in class actions for fear of exposing their entire juvenile case files. We've proposed amendments that preserve efficiency while maintaining the essential gatekeeping role of the Juvenile Court.

California has had a longstanding history of protecting the system involved youth, and we urge you to uphold that. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB413? We'll bring it back to the Committee for any motions, questions, concerns. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I share those comments from the opposition. The confidentiality of the juveniles, for anyone, but especially juveniles as they grow into being adult, to have their juvenile record opened and not supervised by the court. That's a concern that I have just to ask you, if I may, a question.

You talk about the plaintiffs, who are the plaintiffs in this case?

So the plaintiffs would be a youth, a former youth that was in the system, perhaps their parent or their guardian, Sometimes it's a sibling. But we ensure through the bill and 827 itself that all of the mandatory redactions would be made.

So things like their attorney client privilege, reporting party information, health, mental health information, things like that are all redacted before the records are released.

Could any other party to that case access these juvenile records without the permission of the court?

So the parties themselves are normally entitled under 827 themselves to access the records. So the minor, the parent, the child welfare agency or the probation Department, they are automatically entitled under WIC 827 already. It's just the attorneys for the parties in the civil litigation that right now under 827 need to petition the juvenile.

Court, another party, but not the juvenile on the record. I mean, it could be somebody else, another attorney, but it's going to be unsupervised. Access to that information is unsupervised.

So the access to the information would be only for the attorneys representing parties in the particular civil litigation.

And that litigation has to be brought by the subject of the juvenile case file, has to name the Child Welfare Department or Probation Department or their employee as a defendant, and the parties to that litigation, the attorneys for those parties would have access to this heavily redacted versions of the documents and be allowed to use them in the civil proceeding.

If anyone other than the subject of those records would have to file any documents with the court with an application or motion to seal those documents, that gives the opportunity for the subject of the records to object to that ceiling, because sometimes they do want their records to be public or they want to be able to use them for other instances.

But that's an extra protection that's added under SB413.

Okay, thank you. May I ask this witness to like to respond to those comments?

Yeah, I think I can give a couple of real life examples. So, for instance, our law firm has represented youth who have been unfairly put in solitary confinement.

And our concern really is that this opens without the juvenile court reviewing what should be redacted and what should not be redacted to expedite the backlog of cases where we're bypassing the court. That is a protection for youth.

And what happens is, if the court is not reviewing it, information that shouldn't be in there is being exposed to the party. So it may be that the youth had a behavior at age 8 that is in their juvenile case file that then is completely irrelevant to the case before them of being harmed in care.

This is also deeply personal to me. Cause I have a foster youth in my care who we have had to sue for harm. And so if you're a attaching the juvenile case file without going to the court, information that is irrelevant to the case can be used against the minor. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'll move the bill.

And yeah, I appreciate the author taking the amendments, but I do think narrow it somewhat, you know, have ceiling requirements. I think, you know, the fit, the intentions of the Bill, while I, I hope, at least laying some of the concerns that have appropriately been bought by opposition.

So, I appreciate the author for accepting those amendments and I'm hopeful and of course, you know, but we'll see moving forward, you know, how it's implemented.

But I'm hopeful that we've struck the right balance through the work of the Committee and the author so that the records are appropriately cared for and protected and used just for the purposes as laid out in the legislation. Would you like to close?

Yeah, no, thank you. We're going to continue our discussions with the opposition. We've already got a number of similarly situated groups off of opposition and we're certainly going to continue the conversation.

But this is ultimately about, you know, this is very limited circumstances with which these files can be accessed, and we think we've stuck a reasonable balance and, but we'll keep working on it. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Roll call vote on SB 413, please.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks so much. Appreciate you.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, likewise.

Thanks for your work on that.

And then we have item 8, SB 770. Totally different topic.

That's the fun thing about judiciary.

Yeah.

So this we're going to. Let's switch gears from court proceedings to car charging. All right. So our state, as you know, has adopted ambitious goals to address the urgency of the climate crisis and our pollution challenges.

And one of the issues that we have as we, you know, try to help folks get EVs, is the lack of charging infrastructure. Right. We, you know, I think our California Energy and some, several of you were at the Transportation, you know, conference last week.

You know, the Energy Commission estimates that we're going to need over 2 million charging stations to support EV demand with the requirement that all new cars sold in California will be zero emissions by 2035.

And the sad truth is, and we've all been discussing this on both sides of the aisle, something like 8% of the total need has been installed as of last year.

So even if things go haywire with the requirement and, you know, and still we, we know that we're, we're, we're woefully under resource with regards to the charging infrastructure, even that we need right now.

So the price of EVs has been decreasing, but the excess of EV charging stations can continue to be an issue, and especially for residents of multifamily housing. You know, I'm fortunate enough to have my own standalone garage at my townhouse, right where I could plug in my car.

But you have situations where folks who live in HOAs and condominium complexes that are in particularly difficult situations sometimes to make the switch because they may need to use common area spaces to install a charger. Again, in my hoa, we have our own personal parking spaces that we have some control over.

But, but there are a lot of places where folks share the parking situation. So a couple years ago, I tried to address this issue. I authored SB 1016 to remove some of the burdensome policies that prevent an installation of EV chargers in HOAs.

But the bill did not remove a requirement that the homeowner obtain an insurance policy that names the HOA as an additional insured. And that was, I think, something that we didn't quite understand the implications of at the time. It's part of why I'm back with this bill.

The challenge that we've run into is that requiring the HOA to be named as an additional insured under the policy ends up confusing EV drivers and HOAs alike as they try to understand what insurance they're supposed to have.

And the big challenge that we've run into is that these types of policies have been proven difficult to obtain, partly because the market is just getting started. We've had some situations, some consumers that have reported contacting over a dozen insurance agents without finding that any would provide a policy that names the HOA as an additional insured.

Others have been told that their premiums would more than double just because they're putting in place this EV charger, with no good explanation as to why. I mean, the truth is, when we first rolled out the EV charging infrastructure, I think nobody knew what this was going to be like.

There have been no incidences of dangerous situations associated with EV chargers. At the most, what we've heard is that someone could be concerned about someone leaving the charger on the ground, maybe someone tripping over the cord. But these are common situations that you have when people are in and out of parking lots and they leave things behind.

The problem that we've run into is that without the required insurance, HOA residents are saying, wow, you know, I just can't buy, I can't get a car, I can't get an EV because I've got to be able to charge at home. So that's what this, this bill seeks to address. I'm looking forward to a good discussion.

I know you're going to hear from our friend, friends from HOs who've got some concerns. But here to testify and support we have Brandon Wong from CalStart.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Honestly, the Senator kind of took it away. He kind of hit all the main points, right. And so Brandon Wong, on behalf of CalStart, where Californ based global nonprofit, we do everything when it comes to zero mission vehicles. And so that spans the gamut between vehicle incentives, right.

And so a lot of times it's a heavy duty trucking incentives because that technology is really expensive, but it's also addressing policy barriers. Right. And so in the past that's included public permitting barriers for like public charging stations.

And we really view this type of insurance barrier as one of those examples that make it harder for regular people to switch over to an ev.

And so the center actually alluded to it during his comments, but we've actually received a lot of public feedback through just our General inbox emails of people seeing that our group supported the Senators previous legislation in 2018. And they were saying, hey, we're continuing to have these problems. And in some cases the premiums are doubling in price.

Sometimes they're just running around everywhere and they can't figure it out. And so we put a feeler out actually to our own staff in house and it happened. So we actually did have an employee based in West Sacramento who was dealing with essentially this exact problem. Right. And so this problem is actually pretty widespread.

It's a lot more commonplace than we may have anticipated. And like the Senator mentioned, it's largely enforced, largely unnecessary in the sense that a lot of these chargers, you can buy them at Home Depot, right? They're about 200, $300. They're largely safe. We don't see a lot of issues.

A lot of cities have very rigorous permitting and safety standards at the point of installation. And when we're talking about a panel upgrade or electrical upgrade, a lot of that is required to be done by licensed electricians and does meet different rigorous safety requirements.

And so when we're talking about this added insurance requirement, in large part it is just an undue complex barrier that people just don't know how they're supposed to navigate it. Because one, they oftentimes don't even know they have that requirement. And two, when they go to an insurance agent, they're just.

The insurance agents don't even know what they're supposed to do. Right. And so in this case, when someone pulls up to their lot and they want to buy the ev, the flashy, fast new EV that they've been waiting and dying to buy. Right. They also want to be able to charge it at home.

And so at the end of the day, that's why we're here in support of SB770. Really, it's just as simple as making sure people can charge in their garage. Even the non flashy ones. Even the non flashy ones, yeah.

All right, thank you. Are any comments in opposition, please come forward or other support. Oh, excuse me. Out of order. Apologize. We're going. We can, we can. Any speakers in support, please come to the microphone and identify yourself.

Thank you. Chair Members. Chris Scroggin with Capital Advocacy on behalf of ChargePoint and support.

Thank you. Any other comments and support? All right, now we'll come over to speaker in opposition, please.

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Carlos Guterres here on behalf of the Community Associations Institute, California Legislative Action Committee. So the board of directors for homeowner associations. So as the Senator said, this bill would actually remove the homeowners that install EV chargers to name the Association as an additional insured.

This shifts liability from the individual to the entire Association, potentially raising insurance premiums for all residents, even those who don't have an EV charger or an EV car. Whether flashy or not, for years, homeowners have been able to get this coverage.

We have been able to confirm at least three major carriers here in California who provide this coverage. So this isn't about access. We think this is about shifting responsibility from the individual to the Association. Without proper protections for the Association, they can face legal and financial risks from accidents, whether that trip and fall installation requirements.

There's about, I think 60% of our associations are older. They don't have the infrastructure. So then you would have to get an electrician, possibly dig up property, dig up parking lots in these areas. That can be costly. And those will be born essentially by other homeowners, again, by those that don't even have an evidence.

So should this bill come out of the Committee today, we commit to working with the Senator because we think this is more of an insurance issue, not necessarily homeowner Association issue. So for those reasons, we still oppose. Thank you.

Okay, very good. Any other Speakers in opposition, please come forward to the microphone. All right. Seeing none come to the Dias. Committee. Oh, question, Mr. Harabedian.

Just really quickly for the opposition. So the insurance risk, and I understand the installation could involve some infrastructure kind of modification, but is the insurance risk. Mostly because of fire or what's the, I guess what is the risk that. We're trying to insure against?

Well, it could be a number of things. It could be again, just the annoying long extension of the cord. It could be a potential fire from an EV charger station not being installed correctly. It could be the car itself. I mean, those are some of the risks.

As it was stated earlier, a lot of people are looking to move into a more EV, less reliant on gas powered vehicles. So EVs are just going to continue to come. So we want to make sure that if these installations happen, that the Association is covered.

Well, I guess two of, two of. Those, three you couldn't insure against. So I don't really understand that. I mean, the length of the cord, I mean, I don't know how a policy could insure against that. So I guess.

Do you have any examples of this leading to situations in which any of your clients, any HOAs, were they experienced damage or harm or some sort of. Out of pocket liability that they weren't covered for? Because look, I am, I guess, sympathetic in a way. If this is an actual problem, I. Don'T see it as.

It's not clear to me how it. Could be a problem. So. And thank you, if you answer that.

Thank you, Mr.

Tanjibao, if you can answer that. Zero, sorry. zero, I thought so.

It would. We don't have any, we don't have any cases that are in, in court right now. But the example that has been given more and more often than not is someone trips and falls on a cord, breaks an elbow, breaks an arm, gets injured. That is the example that we've been told about by insurance companies.

And that's, you know, if there's no coverage for the, with this Bill, that would leave the Association liable or potentially liable if the coverage which is already existing would cover that under that policy, is my understanding.

Thank you, Mr. Tangipa.

Thank you. More on the insurance issue, because that's where I think it is as well. Would the case be larger on more like theft and vandalism? Have they shared with, you know, if this is shifted towards the HOA or community development? If there are vandalism issues with the charger, is it on the insurance companies.

To replace that I'm not sure. That's more of an insurance question.

Well, to the author with this. Shifting the burden. Huh. It would depend on the, I mean, the policy. And so, and that's where I look at. And then there's a couple clarity questions because so I too live in a townhome here in West Sac.

If I install an individual charger in my private garage, that does not apply to this, even though on the.

This is only for areas where folks have to park in a shared.

So in a shared parking garage system. So and with your Bill, SB 1016, that's the one where the individual property or garage condo owner, they would pay to install that. Right. But now this shifts after they paid for their installation towards the entire community development for the community to then factor that into their HOA.

Well, only if so. So all we're doing here is saying that, that they don't have to put the HOA on as an additional insured. So to the extent, I mean, this is kind of a worst case scenario type of argument, which is your job to do. Right. I mean, that's why we were here.

But in the end of the day, he's suggesting that if the HOA is not adequately insured and then someone trips and falls on a cord and then sues the hoa, they could potentially be on the hook. That's I think, the essential concern.

Yeah, and I understand on that one, on the liability. I mean, I don't think the tripping portion of it is really what I'm worried about. I'm more worried on the vandalism, copper theft, you know, the rising crime that does the HOA have to replace that because that's covered in their insurance is what I'm trying to think about.

And the main reason why I think about it a lot, I just believe we're in an insurance catastrophe in the state. Expansions of insurance really make it hard.

It's just, it's hard for me to see where an individual who puts a charging station in a common shared parking garage, now the insurance shifts over to the HOA or the CID.

That's the part where I'm trying to see, you know, and I understand state's goals for electric vehicles, but it really shifts that portion over to everybody who wasn't involved.

Yeah, I mean, I'm. If the concern is concern is cost.

Cost for everybody increasing because of an individual's investment.

Yeah. I mean there's nothing stopping the. I mean the thing is, if someone vandalizes, that's not the HOA's responsibility. Right. The person who, the car owner who installed the charger can then report that to the police. They can take out their own insurance.

Nothing's stopping them from taking out their own insurance to protect against their own losses associated with what you're describing. So if they want to go out and find an insurance product to guard against or protect against that exact scenario, that's their option.

The HOA wouldn't be on the hook for a suit from the, from the car owner for a third party vandalizing the charger. I mean, obviously, I mean, if the HOA went in and banged it up, but the scenario you're talking about doesn't really involve the hoa. Does that make sense?

Well, I'm just saying if the HOA covers, if the HOA's insurance covers vandalism and, but again, that would be the.

HOA's discretion if they want to cover that sort of thing. All we're doing is this is a very particular part of law that governs the access of EV, the right of someone to install EV charging infrastructure.

But it's moving the insurance towards the hoa. From the personal insurance side.

The current law requires the HOA to be included as an additional insured if you want to install the charger. And we're doing with this Bill, we seek to do away with that explicit requirement. Does that make sense? And, but then it would only be on the hoa, right? No, no.

If, if, if someone were to, in your scenario, right, Someone comes up and just like sledgehammers, the, the, the item. Right. That's not, that's not the HOA's. That wouldn't necessarily be the HOA's kind of insurance responsibility.

Now, of course, if they have some sort of comprehensive coverage, I suppose maybe the, maybe the, the guy, the, the car owner could make the case, but. Yeah. Sorry.

May I respond, Madam Chair? Yeah. So under the homeowner Association's master policy, anything in the common area. So my understanding is that if the Association were to install EV chargers for the entire community, then, yes, any type of vandalism or issue would be covered by that. This Bill would remove, that is my understanding, to the individual.

The individual is installing an EV charger in a common area, removing the Association within. If something were to happen to that EV charger that's on the Association, that's my understanding.

It would remove the requirement that the HOA be added as an additional insured. If a Member of the Association wanted to install it on their own.

If the if the, if the HOA wanted to go ahead and do it on its own and it wanted to keep it as part of its broader insurance policy, there, there's nothing in here that would stop them from doing that.

Okay.

Is that, you know.

Are you finished with your question? Are you finished? I know this is tricky. It's very confusing.

Thank you for clarity. No, it's a good.

I think we might be able to clarify yet further. Nothing in this Bill would prevent an HOA from seeking indemnity from an individual's carrier when that individual gets their insurance.

In other words, you don't have to be a named insured in order to, to go to the personalized homeowner and say, we need some indemnity from your carrier because in fact, you made the cord too long and that's why somebody tripped. And it really wasn't on the HOA to maintain it. It was the actual individual homeowners.

The indemnity is still out there. Even though the named insured issue, which is the difficulty that homeowners are having, that, that put in EV chargers, that issue is the problem. But ultimate indemnity never goes away. Right? That's right. That's right. Okay. That's right. That's just what I wanted to clarify.

So whatever that liability is, if it's you didn't maintain a safe condition or whatever it might be, we can always go after the other carrier.

And certainly if the HOA wants to provide charging infrastructure, they can add it to their insurance policy, no question.

But this indemnity, from the actual person getting insurance, who will be getting insurance, who will say, I put in an EV charger and I need to get that insured. Right. There's a deep pocket there. Should, should the HOA need it. Right. Okay.

All right. We have a few more questions to my Members of her.

So thank you very much for bringing this Bill. I'd love to be at it as a co author.

I think it's a really important one to help remove barriers that I think so many people are facing as they're trying to navigate how they're going to charge their cars when they get home, especially when they're living in multi unit buildings. I had a question for the opponent.

Is it your position that someone should have to take get insurance on their own policy if they had a storage unit next to their parking spot or.

I mean, it just seems like there's a lot of things that people do in a garage and there's storage units in many apartment buildings, in many condominiums I've never heard which probably creates some minimal amount of risk. And I sort of view this as something where the charger has really minimal risk.

Something where we want chargers to be in these parking spaces and where it's sort of an odd question to go to an insurance company and say can I add an entire condo Association on because I want to put a charger in for my car.

It would be like coming in and saying okay, I use a hose to wash my car in the building. So can you give me put the condo Association on because I have hoses next to similar. Right. Or because I have a storage unit next to it.

It's all these modest risks that are part of living in a multi unit building and you're. And it feels like this is being isolated out when at least it's the plan in the State of California the most people will be charging will be driving electric vehicles at some point soon. And we want to accommodate it.

I think with, you know, from, you know, similar to the comments made by my colleague from Pasadena, you know, if this was something where there was some huge risk involved that was, you know, that was identifiable and understandable, I might have a different perspective.

But I just don't see anything other than the kinds of risks that lawyers sort of dream up in their offices in order to sort of argue about how you can prevent something from happening. So with that, I don't know if you want to respond to that.

I said a lot but Assembly Member, thank you for the question. I don't know the policies for storage units. I'll just say that EV chargers are already being covered in some policies so I would have to look further into storage units or hoses.

Yeah.

Anyway, thank you. I think it's a good bill. Thank you for bringing it.

And I'll be Member Pacheco.

Thank you. And I know a lot of the questions that were actually asked asking are actually like insurance type of related questions and I do understand that this bill is going to go to the insurance Committee next and I'm sure a lot of these issues will be resolved in that Committee. But it doesn't. I'm reading the analysis.

It doesn't look like it looks like the homeowner's insurance could still recover compensation, is that correct? Or compensation for any damages. That's the point of time. Yeah. So it looks like there's still an ability but I understand there's maybe concerns. So I'm looking forward to conversations on both sides.

But I'm sure a lot of these concerns will be Addressed in insurance. I am voting for the bill today and I'm looking forward to continued conversations and seeing what comes out of insurance Committee. So I appreciate you being here and addressing your concerns and hopefully we come out with something good.

I know a lot of us are getting electric vehicles. I'm not there yet, but someday I will be. So I appreciate you coming here. Thank you.

All right, do we have any other comments from the dais? I'll move the Bill. Second. Second. All right, shall we vote, Mr. Harvein and Mr. Garcia? zero, do you want to go to a close too, please, Senator?

No, I appreciate discussion. I'll second Senator Blanc, Pacheco's comments and use that as my clothes.

Thank you very, very much. Senator.

Thank you.

The motions do pass to insurance Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Thank you very much.

On call.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Still on call?

Yeah, I think I see Wahab.

Senator Wahab, would you like to come forward, please? With Senate Bill 436.

You know what, you guys make this a very pleasant experience.

We try.

Okay, please proceed.

Do you want our witnesses up here?

Or if you had one more, that—sure. We have room.

Yeah.

Don't be vashal. And if the opposition has—one of you will step aside.

All right. Okay. Please begin.

Thank you. I'm here to present SB 436, which is a very simple bill. It basically extends the pay or move out notice for residential renters from three days to 14 days.

And I want to be very clear, there is actually a number of states with varying political party leadership, like Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and others, that all require landlords to provide a minimum of 14-day notice before terminating a tenancy for non-payment.

And I want to make it also very clear that the Committee amendments in Senate Judiciary were done to the benefit of landlords and tenants. Giving tenants more time to make good on their rent reduces the likelihood of landlords incurring court costs. There's a number of benefits.

For example, under current law, tenants may avoid eviction for non-payment of rent only if they are able to pay all of their rent demanded by the landlord within three days of a notice to pay or quit.

But the reality is that once the sun has set on the third business day, the tenant's right to preserve the tenancy and avoid eviction is completely extinguished. The state's three-day notice passes far too quickly for families to make up past due rent or receive financial assistance.

Beyond immediate displacement, the negative ripple effects of an eviction often extend to the loss of possessions, access to work, health care, and transportation. I also want to highlight the fact that when you are foreclosed on, it takes several months to have a property foreclosed on.

We've changed the laws also for foreclosure and the notice to vacate for homeowners during the great recession, but we did not do that for renters. In fact, there are many cities that provide rental assistance to ensure that people are housed longer, right? That is the goal. We talk constantly about the fact that people are paycheck to paycheck.

And our fastest growing homeless demographic is our seniors. Our seniors, those that are past their prime earning age and are literally living paycheck to paycheck. When we have these concerns about, you know, our senior population, our growing homeless population, and much more, yes, there's a lot of things that the State of California can do and should do and still don't do.

And so, this is a very small ask from the State of California, very small, to allow people 14 days to either ask for family members and loved ones to give them money to stay housed, to ask their cities or any of the other nonprofits that help people with rental assistance stay housed, or to even be able to wait for their check.

Imagine you being in a hospital and unable to actually earn any income for that moment and are waiting for your check. So, when we talk about people living paycheck to paycheck, well, we can do something about that and keep people housed longer today.

Extending the notice period to 14 days allows the tenant more time to pay before being taken to court. It also allows somebody to avoid an eviction record and, you know, make sure that they have the potential to rent in the future or find somewhere else that's cheaper to live.

It's in the public's best interest to solve the issue of homelessness by reducing unnecessary evictions. Both my counties that I represent have the highest amount of evictions in the State of California. And in fact, this past Friday, I went to a facility that caters largely to seniors, and they were living in, in a 2020-developed building with literally studs.

People are taking advantage of communities. In Los Angeles County, 75,312 people are experiencing homelessness. 40% of the homeless population have a disabling condition. 54% of newly homeless individuals in LA County become homeless due to economic hardship. In San Mateo County, 2,130 homeless people.

Number of families with children experiencing homelessness has increased by over 50% from 2022 to 2024. These households are predominantly female—women and children being forced into the streets because they can't afford rents in San Mateo County. San Bernardino County, 4,255 homeless people. 11.5% are former foster youth. 20.7% have a physical disability.

And over 80% of those surveyed in the last point in time from San Bernardino County, not transplants. People are made homeless where they live. In Orange County, 7,322 homeless people. With one third of the homeless population in Orange County having a disability, 76% reported that their last permanent address was in Orange County.

And 51% have family in the same county. Literally every single county that we have talked about. The number one consideration that many of them have responded to in these surveys is to say that if they were able to stay housed longer, they would have avoided homelessness completely. It is rental assistance that helps them.

Many of them need a little bit more time to do the paperwork that the nonprofits require, the paperwork that the cities require to stay housed. And I will say, this benefits landlords completely. They have months if they are dealing with a foreclosure, to deal with their foreclosure.

But tenants have three days, a notice of three days to get your shit and get out. That's literally what it is.

So, if we care about homeless people, if we care about seniors, if we care about single parents and children on the streets, you will vote for this and understand that this is literally balancing the scales and not to the degree that it needs to be balanced.

So, with that, I'd like to introduce my first witness, Suzanne Dershowitz, Senior Attorney of Public Advocates, as well as Juliet Brodie, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School, and co-author of "Win Win: Paying Landlords and Keeping Californians Housed," a report by the Stanford Law School Law and Policy Lab.

Okay, two minutes each, please.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Suzanne Dershowitz. I'm a Senior Staff Attorney at Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization, and proud co-sponsor of SB 436.

Extending the three-day notice to pay rent or move out to 14 days would help to significantly decrease evictions among low-income renters, disproportionately made up of single parents, children, and people of color.

Under California law, California renters receive only three days to pay before the landlord can begin the fast-tracked eviction court process to force them from their home. Many low-income families do not have savings and so a single unexpected expense can lead to a late rent payment.

SB 436 would give renters with no other housing options additional time to get help to pay and stay in their homes. In this housing market, with over 30%—with over half of renters spending more than 30% of their income on housing—Californians need every chance they can get to stay stably housed.

The extra days give renters time to access public benefits, apply for rental assistance, get another paycheck, secure a loan, or find a lawyer and avoid eviction. 14 days is reasonable, especially given that renters have no right to cure beyond this initial notice period and we know it works in other states that require 14 day notice.

Extending the notice period would also allow both parties to avoid the expense of an unnecessary eviction when the tenancy could be rescued with just a few extra days to pay. SB 436 is a homelessness prevention Bill.

A 2018 study by the National Law Center on homelessness and poverty found that evictions are a direct cause of homelessness, either immediately or after social safety networks are exhausted.

As we struggle with the highest rate of unsheltered homelessness in the nation, at a time when eviction filings have surpassed pre-pandemic levels and rising rents are outpacing wages, we must do all we can to stabilize housing for the 45% of California households across the state who rent.

For all these reasons, on behalf of the sponsors and more than 90 organizations in support, we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next, speaker please.

Thank you. Good, is this, can you hear me? Good morning, Chair and Members. As the Senator said, I'm Juliet Brodie.

I'm a Professor at Stanford Law School where I direct the Community Law Clinic and I have supervised students and myself represented thousands of tenants who are being evicted, most of them for nonpayment of rent, principally in San Mateo County.

I'm not going to reiterate the major points of this Bill, the rationales for this Bill, but I do want to emphasize a few things. Number one, the opposition will tell you that this goes way too far and puts landlords behind the eight ball in a sort of unreasonable way, and I want to address that head on.

First of all, I want to say rent will still be due on the first or whatever date the lease says the rent is due. So, this does not change the terms of the lease. It does give, as homeowners have, some forgiveness in terms of delinquency and default.

But rent is still due and late fees will still attach if they are called for under the lease, as of any late payment. So will any other damages to the landlord attributable to lateness. They're not waiving a cause of action. They're just not able to terminate a tenancy and proceed to summary process immediately.

They're just having to give the tenants an opportunity to cure that homeowners and we all enjoy in other Bill paying context. Similarly, chronic non-payment of rent could still be a basis for eviction.

So, the scenario that the landlords will tell you that someone can just now pay rent every month on the 15th without penalty is not true. There's always a balance. That's what you all do. You have to strike a balance between interests. 3 days—there's no reason to think that 3 days is magic and correct.

3 days was set in 1863 and it's not changed since. 14 is not magic either. The states the Senator listed have 14 or more. There are states that have more. You all have to strike that balance. There's no reason to think that three is right. Make it at least 14.

All right, thank you. Thank you very much. Let's speak to the opposition. Anyone? Oh, other support. Why do I keep skipping that? Excuse me. Please come forward in support of this Bill. Senate Bill 436.

Christopher Sanchez, on behalf of Asians Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, in support.

My name is Tanya Saheeli. I'm Licensed Attorney for California and I am coming in support of this Bill. I have represented many clients who I have seen would definitely benefit from a 14 day. Thank you.

Thank you.

Monica Madrid, on behalf of the California Democratic Party Renters Council, in support.

Thank you. Sodali King, here on behalf of UDW AFSME Local 3930, in strong support.

Good morning. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, in support.

Mark Ysidra, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, in support. Thanks.

Alicia Dienst, on behalf of Sacramento Area Congregations Together, in support.

Natalie Spivak, with Housing California, in support.

Brian Augusta, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Public Council, and National Housing Law Project, in support.

Hello. Michelle Paracet with Public Advocates and on behalf of Unite Here Local 11, in support.

Hello. Karen Stout, here on behalf of Power California Action, in strong support.

Benjamin Henderson, on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support.

Shane Henson, on behalf of Los Angeles Right to Council Coalition, Inner City Law Center, and Tenants Together, in support.

Elmer Lazardi, on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you.

I'm Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership, in support.

Sylvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica, in strong support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 436? Just made two—if one of you, one of you can stick around and just have them give—leave two seats for them.

Yeah, there, there you go.

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association here in respectful opposition. This bill will allow for all tenants to pay on the 14th despite their financial need. Owners will have to serve all of these tenants with a 14 day notice. Chronic non payment is not addressed. Despite the supporters comments.

Rental property owners of course still have to pay their bills, the mortgage, the insurance, et cetera. You've heard that other states have longer notice. What you didn't hear however is those other states have very strong disincentives to paying late. Some are a 5% per week, so some are a 20% of the rent if it is not paid.

All of those that are listed have those strong disincentives. This bill does not. The supporters also argue that the landlord can charge any late fee. This is just not true.

While California does not have a specific late fee law, the courts have upheld only those late fees that they consider to be unreasonable and that has been very inconsistent.

The amount of the late fee that we have seen is typically $25, which of course as you can guess, does not provide a disincentive to pay the rent on time. If tenants cannot pay the rent on time, there are local programs that help pay the rent.

Banks also provide interest free credit cards immediately to anybody who needs to pay and those credit cards pay the landlord directly. If the state does care, as the good Senator has said, then we have suggested that they provide a loan program through the I bank if they care. That's what the state should do.

Of course through current leases you have typically a three to five day delay, but of course now the owners are going to roll that back because of course we will end up with other bills that are pending as well. We're going to end up with 22 days, not 14 days.

So with all of that we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Audrey Retajcyk on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in respectful opposition to SB436. While we understand and appreciate the author's intent to help residential tenants facing hardship, we believe that commercial property is unintentionally. Captured in some sections of the bill. There are a few sections.

I won't list them, but they apply kind of broadly and as written. We feel like that would extend eviction timelines for commercial leases as well. Commercial leases are negotiated business to business contracts. So for small family and minority owned commercial property owners, the ability to act swiftly when rent isn't paid is critical.

Extending notice periods to 14 days, even. In cases where the tenant may simply choose to wait can cause serious financial. Harm and delay lawful recourse. And we also want to echo the concerns raised by Deborah Department Association. The analysis claims the bill would reduce. The burden of court proceedings by giving. Tenants more time to pay.

But landlords can already choose to wait. So we respectfully ask to work with. The author to ensure that commercial leases aren't included.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB436?

Bernie Menacer with the California Association of Realtors. Also in opposition.

Mr. Chair, Ron Kingston representing two apartment associations. The Apartment Association Orange County and the East Bay Rental Housing Association. In opposition.

Good morning. Kate Bell on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association and Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles in opposition. Thanks.

Mr. Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association in opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Mark Smith on behalf of the Berkeley Property Owners Association, the NorCal Rental Properties Association, the North Valley Property Owners Association, the Santa Barbara Rental Property Association and the Small Property Owners of San Francisco in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to Committee. We'll go. We'll go in order what I just saw here. So Senator Pacheco.

Yes, thank you. I actually used to practice landlord tenancy cases. And I remember I used to represent small mom and pop landlords. I used to represent seniors. I used to represent individuals that had a hard time speaking English. So Spanish was their primary language. And this was a very complicating process.

And what I saw was that the eviction process can easily take two months, three months, four months. And having the three day notice to pay or quit gives a tenant an opportunity to pay their rent. If the third day fell on a Saturday, a Sunday or a holiday, it gets extended out.

And it's not like the third day is always the third of the month because a tenant has to not have paid their rent for like day one, day two, and then an eviction notice will be provided. And so I have seen the delays that the eviction process can last here in California.

I used to represent tenants in Los Angeles County. And so I worry about these mom and pop landlords. I worry about these seniors who are going to have a hardship because they rely on this money for their expenses, for their mortgage, for whatever they need. And we're putting them in a very bad situation.

And so I do care about seniors. I care about keeping them in their homes and I care about doing what's best for them. And so I can't support this bill.

Senator Tangipa.

Yeah. To echo the statement from the Assemblywoman from Downey. Question for the author. Are you familiar with the average portfolio of a landlord and the size of that portfolio?

I'm sure you want to share it with me.

I do.

It's three.

Are you familiar with the average amount of portfolio that make up from mom and pop individuals who own these tenant these units, please. 41% are single owners of these units. And so. And where's your source? J.P. Morgan actually provided that in 2023.

Okay. And it's for the State of California. For the United States. The United States. They were looking at it as a General.

And so about. I think it's about 4141.8 million are owned by mom and pop. But now I can provide you my personal source. I work in real estate. I'm actually a landlord myself.

And I have one unit that I make $300 a month on that I rent out towards students to help them out so that way they can have an affordable renting situation. Because less than 10 years ago I ended up homeless. And I wanted to provide that type because I do care as well.

But there was a case back in 2021 that I was working with to sell a home from a landlord because we put an eviction notice that we couldn't evict somebody. That these individuals actually did not pay rent for 12 months.

That this individual is now foreclosing on her rental unit and it was causing her to have to sell it at such a large rate. Because not only did these individuals not pay rent on time, they stripped the entire property down, stole all the copper wire, destroyed the walls.

And now that this individual is out her own retirement because of some of these issues that we've had here in the State of California.

Not only that, we are the most unfriendly state to a lot of these landlords and businesses that are just trying to operate and provide that same that I believe we're exaggerating the issue, especially when we're putting those same landlords in the position of those who are just trying to provide their own stable housing.

That a lot of individuals that own one unit on average make 300 to $500 if they still have a mortgage on top of it. And it, you know, this may shift it from three to 14 days, but these individuals have 30 days to know when their, their bill is due.

And I understand that growing up in low income communities, there's, there's got to be individual responsibility as well on those. I mean, I grew up in low income housing.

I understand it that right now our landlords, most of them mom and pop, older individuals, that their property, their singular property, is their additional income, that this would just add the additional burden and really hurt them and respectfully oppose this.

Thank you. I do wanna highlight keywords he used was additional income. So if they are seniors and potentially on a fixed income, I do wanna highlight some. That people don't all have the luxury and the benefit and the affluence to be able to own a property to begin with in California, let alone seniors.

I appreciate the data that you provided. And I also wanna highlight that in California we lack data. Every single data effort that has happened in the State of California to identify who owns what property and transparency has been killed in this building.

So when people talk about small mom and pop landlords, and I wanna highlight this as my own personal experience, is that in the City of Hayward, as a City Council Member, I would get emails from people talking about how they're a small mom and pop landlord. Small mom and pop at a local level is under five units.

And the reality was that this particular landlord had over a thousand units in the East Bay, right? But saying that they were a small mom and pop. In fact, our records when we were doing property assessments and much more when we were creating a database in the City of Hayward showed that they owned 89 units. Right.

And each property is under a different LLC that covers and hides who really owns it. So there is no transparency on good acting and bad acting landlords. We also know that there are many stories of abuses and the landlords often focus on edge cases and bring up theoretical scenarios of the worst tenants.

And I fully agree with you. When people are stripping a property, taking copper out, we've seen this, we've seen it in the news and so forth. I don't support that. I don't support that at all. But our roles as policymakers is to find the balance. And it's really the balance that I'm looking for in this.

And I think 14 days is truly a balance. And I understand that we have a lease. I have to rent two properties just because of the Sacramento and the Bay Area. I know when I have to pay. I know all of those things. But I also want to highlight that three days is not enough.

We fixed it for homeowners during the Great Recession, but we did not fix it for apartment renters. And I really want to highlight that because of the fact that there is an imbalance and to focus on bad tenants without discussing the bad landlords and not being able to have the data and the transparency.

That is a disservice to any policy conversation related to tenant and landlord concerns. I've heard time and time again that small landlords are often more willing to offer grace and time extensions and much more. And I do believe that because they build a relationship, they know how it is to potentially be a renter.

And they are not these big corporate landlords that have savings and much more.

But the fact of the matter is that there are landlords who will not work with their tenants and who do not care that their tenant is in the hospital, hospital who may have been laid off, who is a single mom who is struggling, who is has a late paycheck, our federal workers, when we talk about them, and sometimes the freezes and much more.

We have to again, as policymakers, strike a balance. And I do want to highlight that as much as possible as why this is important.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you. I just have a quick question. What is to and I'm sympathetic to mom and pop, as you say. Whether that's a euphemism for all landlords, I don't know. But I personally know people. It's not their extra income, it's their income, their sole income. And that's how they pay the mortgage for the duplex.

But getting to the terms of the Bill, is there anything that prevents or. Prohibits a tenant to do this every. Month to say I'm going to be late and give me 14 more days and then they start the proceedings after 14 days. And then.

But to your using your own words, you said everybody knows when they're renting, when the rent is due, and halfway into the preceding month, they know that in two weeks they need to pay the rent. This is just a vicious cycle.

And to go 14 days and then relief and then the eviction process starts and could be two or three or more months. I just, I don't see any guardrails on this. So are there any?

Actually, I also agree with you on that. And I do believe that there should be guardrails. And I'm more than happy to commit to that. I also heard from one of the opposition witnesses regarding the commercial piece. We do believe that our bill is specifically about residential. But we are willing to clarify both things. Right.

One, the safeguards that is needed. And I fully, fully intend to do that, as well as to clarify that our intention is not to capture the commercial properties, because this is not what this is about. And so I'm committed on record to addressing that.

Okay. Very good.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, just want to thank the author for the passion and the fight. I mean, I don't think that there's a more passionate advocate on these issues than you. And just watching you do your work and testify and put your heart and soul into it is admirable.

And I think that you and I share the same goal, which is to try to avoid evictions to keep people in their house.

I think where we disagree is whether it's the three day pay or quit or whether there's a bigger issue which you are trying to solve in the original version of this bill, which was the redemption right, the right to redeem. To me, that is where I think a lot of the change comes.

And you've seen in other states where regardless of whether it's a three day, a seven day or 14 day, what we want to do is disincentivize eviction actions, unlawful detainer actions, keep people in their houses and give them a right to come fully pay off their rent. The right to redeem allows them to do that.

I don't think that the current State of law in California is fair enough for renters. So for me, the solution is what you were trying to do originally. And it's too bad because it comes to us in a different form, a form that only deals with a portion of the law.

That to me is really not where I think the change needs to be done. I think 3 versus 14. I think, frankly, we're kicking the can down the road unless we're doing a right to redemption bill. So I can't support this bill as it is now, not because you and I differ on the outcomes.

We want to avoid evictions. I think that the original version of this bill and actually focusing on redemption is where I think the law needs to be changed. So I look forward to bringing back a bill that looks more like the original one. But regardless, thank you for your time here today and thank you for the bill.

I think the author has asked me to respond to that, if I may. Well, I of course agree with you as someone who has worked on the right to redeem. Would love to see that bill brought before this chamber, this body. And I agree with you.

I do want to say a little bit about why I think the 14 days actually helps landlords more than three.

As many of the cases that I represent, they end up in a judgment for eviction against the tenant who gets evicted and gets a money judgment entered against them for the Amount that they owed, as the law would, would deliver one month, two months, three months, depending on how long it takes that case to get to trial, how much rent has accrued by the time the judgment is entered.

Do landlords see that money? Absolutely not. My clients don't have extra money. Some of them are judgment proof. Landlords do not see that money. There is rental assistance money, locally, non, privately and publicly that is available for landlords to fill in some of these gaps.

This is actual money that would go to actual landlords, but my clients cannot get that money flowing in three days. Now, maybe the landlord will accept it after filing the action, but they don't have to. And if we're going to do, you know, we have to be very careful about legislating by anecdote, right?

Because we can hear anecdotes about the horrible tenants. I can tell you stories about landlords who would accept that rental assistance, who would accept that Money on day 20, except for racial animus, except for discriminating against people of color, people with disabilities. You're too much trouble. I don't want to accommodate your disability. Gotcha.

You were late on your rent and it's day four, you're gone. That kind of pretextual refusal to accept rental assistance or other funds that the landlord has been able to gather, that is not the behavior that this Legislature wants to incentivize. 14 days gives time for that money to flow.

A landlord doesn't end up with an absolutely useless money judgment, but instead gets the money that you all and others have appropriated to keep landlords in business. And this 14 days is by no means doomsday. It's what many, many states do, and it will make money flow to landlords.

I also just want to highlight, you know, I want to be very clear. I hear everybody and I hear what you've said, and I will highlight that the original intent of this bill has been watered down significantly. And, you know, you may think it's kicking the can, and for me, it's chipping away at the bigger issue.

The reality is doing the right thing in this building seems very difficult when it comes to tenants, right? We have the California Apartment Association spending millions of dollars on specific Members, on Members that are sympathetic, on people that want to do the right thing.

And I want to highlight that because that is the big elephant in the room, right?

Do we do enough for the most vulnerable, the people that do not have the affluence of time to show up on a Tuesday morning to advocate for themselves, who do not have the affluence of financial backing to be able to take a day off and advocate.

You've heard from a number of different advocates that represent a lot of different stakeholders saying this is the right thing to do. And I understand the hesitation that people have. Right. You know, do you really want millions of dollars going against you? No.

And I really want to highlight the fact that, again, as policymakers, the whole point of having this seat is to do the right thing by all people.

And so I have committed to ensuring that we clarify that we are going to protect as many people as possible, including the small mom and pop landlord, but also making sure that we remove the commercial properties as one of the considerations. But I don't think that this is kicking the can.

I think that this is tackling the problem step by step. And if we can't do the little thing right in front of us, how are we ever going to do the big thing? That's the honest truth.

Senator Connolly.

Also want to thank the author for coming forward and actually the. The quality of the discussion this morning. A lot of my, what I would call concerns about the bill have been aired. And going to my colleague's point, kind of struggling with the things 3 versus 14.

As a practicing lawyer, I had a little bit of experience in this field. Doesn't sound like as much as my distinguished colleague, but it always struck me that three days seemed both startlingly quick and sudden. Yet when you got into the process, inevitably it was going to last several months anyway.

So I had a lot of sympathy for small mom and pop landlords navigating that as well. So I guess a question is, and I appreciate the willingness to kind of look at guardrails around, this cannot be a De facto two week extension of payment of rent.

It looks like you're looking at some of the other concerns that have been. Raised, but at the heart of it, what does the. Why 14? Why not just double it to like six or seven? So, yeah, what, what's behind that?

You know, and I think that we've talked about numbers. We know that this entire process of eviction or foreclosure and so forth takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of money. It takes a lot of court conversations and much more.

The honest truth is that most of the nonprofits and the cities that we talk to, including my own City of Hayward, has stated that that gives roughly enough time for both the nonprofit or the city to be able to gather funds, utilize the funds that are already guaranteed to folks.

The paperwork, you know, proving this, getting the funds out to the person and to the hands of the landlord. You know, we can say that a lot of the numbers that we're putting out, whether it's the foreclosure of the several months or even the eviction process, are all arbitrary. Right.

It's all based on timelines of whether it's the judge, whether it's the date and so forth. So a lot of this can be argued that way, however, based on best practices. And from those subject matter experts that we talked to, they said that this is reasonable.

Yeah. And if I could just add, I want to make sure everyone understands that exactly as you're saying this, 3 versus 14 days is the window of time before the summons and complaint for unlawful detainer are filed. So the extension that the couple of months that it might take is once that lawsuit has been filed.

And that does depend on every judge's calendar and how the county has arranged their UD practice. But what we're talking about is the pre filing 14 days. And that is where the opportunity to cure is so important and can actually, as we say, make money flow to the landlord and also disincentivize the landlords from incurring attorneys fees.

I mean, the attorneys who are just filing, filing, filing dozens and dozens of these lawsuits a day, you know, every day is day four for somebody. Let's make it day 15 and make fewer of them.

And I want to highlight, for example, imagine you were a senior living in Oakland in a. You know, even in Hayward, and your mailbox was broken into and your Social Security check was stolen. Right. And you are calling the office to say, hey, I didn't receive it.

And one day, two days, three days passes by, but they need to send you another check or you are working and, you know, you weren't able to work, or something happened with your job and you need a little bit more time.

So there are things like wage theft, there are things like missing checks, there are things like confusion and much more. And again, 14 days is reasonable. It's not a lot. It's not the whole month. It's less than half the month even. And we were just trying to strike a balance, if you will appreciate that.

So I'm going to vote for the bill today, but I really do view this as a work in progress. I think it needs to. Yeah. Further consideration, tightening it up. So appreciate it, though. Definitely. Thanks.

So I very much appreciate what the bill is trying to do and I. We will all stipulate in this room that there is a housing crisis. And I don't think that can be disputed. But I, I have had communications with the offer author but I don't think you know why I'm not crazy about the bill.

So let me just tell you. I don't see landlords as banks. I don't see them as connecting collecting savings deposits such that they can continue to allow such a great period of time.

I know you don't think it's a great period of time, but I'll tell you one thing, on the 15th, if I don't pay my mortgage, it's a late fee. And so to my colleague from Marin's point, that means something to me. And I just wonder why we are shifting to the landlord.

And I'm not sure that they're the right segment that should be in that position of damaging their credit if they can't pay the mortgage. Because when I bump up against 14, if in fact the tenant isn't able to pay, then I'm up against it.

And this idea that, well, you know, by the time a foreclosure happens in G during the Great Recession we allowed people a longer period of time before banks foreclose. That may be, but it's still risk to me.

Or when I consider that dry cleaner in Long Beach who came to this country with nothing and doesn't have a pension and has been paying year in and year out and still continues with a mortgage on the rental property. Those are some very lean times and in.

So when I combine that number one with the practical world of yes, you get served with your three day notice and we have somebody here from Stanford who works in public law, we know that it would take a long time to get a judgment. And so I can appreciate somebody. You have a very good point.

A tenant doesn't want a judgment on their record either. And by the way, I'm no fan of penalties. Just so you know, in my mind, if, if it's collectible, which I will stipulate, most of the time it's not collectible. But if it is, that just puts people farther behind.

So I don't see penalties necessarily as the answer either. But this idea that you got to bump up against when the mortgage is due. But I also feel like in the, in the real world a lot of times these things are resolved within 14 days even if an unlawful detainer action is filed.

And I know most landlords that I know if you can ultimately get that money by the 14th or the 20th when it takes the a non profit to provide money for somebody or even 25 days. You're not gonna have a judgment before that time. Hold on. There's no question pending. Just give me a chance to be heard.

So I want to talk about. Not only are landlords I'm not sure they should be made banks, and I don't see them as collecting deposits such that they can handle that. But also, I don't really. I've operated in the real world. I've dealt with landlord tenant cases. I just don't see it there.

So I'm not sure this is the answer. And I do feel like most landlords would not want a turnover and an empty time in the property that doesn't benefit anybody. And I appreciate what you're saying by anecdotes, but I'm listening to your anecdotes. I'd like you to hear some of mine too.

And I appreciate that data's hard to come by. I served on my local City Council. My favorite person that came to testify was as follows.

I don't know his name, but he was an old guy and he came up and he goes, listen, you spend 30 years paying off a building and you hope to God it's paid off before you die. And then he sat down and that was it.

I've been on the front lines of this issue for a long time, and I'm sensitive to what tenants go through. But practically speaking, I. Most landlords want to work with their tenants to work something out, but I just don't feel comfortable with the landlord's credit.

Whether it's a bonafied full foreclosure or a late penalty, I'm just not there. And I'm not there to shift it. And so I didn't have a chance to tell you why I wasn't going to be voting for the bill. But have at it while I'm ready for you. Thank you. Thank you.

So, Assembly Member of tap. And I said it, love. Yes, we enjoy each other's company. So one I do just want to highlight. 46.41% of unlawful detainers are resolved within 14 days of filing. Right. That is one data that we received from the courts that are really in this.

So again, the reason why we chose 14 is because it was the most reasonable amongst all stakeholders. Right. We are not looking to penalize the small mom and pop landlord.

And I have joked many times with our California Apartment Association representative and others that one day I hope that, you know, we can all eventually own a building and be able to provide housing to other folks. Here's the reality.

Also when we're talking about corporate landlords, right, that own hundreds of units, they also have a property manager that sometimes is very difficult to get a hold of, to be able to talk to, to be able to say these and have these concerns and really talk about it.

Now, this is one of the concerns that is the balancing act, right? So you have roughly 90 days for a property owner to potentially go into a foreclosure, to potentially do anything like that, and three days for a renter, all right? And anybody can see the imbalance there. And so, yes, this Bill is a work in progress.

This Bill does, you know, deserve some of the guardrails that were brought up. And I am not opposed to these guardrails at all. Right. But I also believe that we need to keep pushing this forward without letting a bill, you know, just be tanked because it's. There's so many concerns.

And we're going to, you know, speak in, you know, a utopia of what should be, but never get there because we're not doing the work today. Right? And so I also believe that, you know, when people are paying for their building, especially our senior population, they want some guarantees, right?