Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Well, good morning everyone, and welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda and allow everyone equal time, the rules for witness testimony of the each side will be allowed two main witnesses. Each witness will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the Bill.

And additional witnesses should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the Bill. And as we proceed with witness and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands the Committee has rules to ensure a fair and efficient hearing.

And I won't go over all those details at the moment, but hopefully those won't be necessary since we have a very well-behaved audience and I hope well behaved Senate authors. And so, we do not have a quorum. However, we will begin as a Subcommittee in order to respect the time of everyone that's here this morning.

And so, we'll go ahead and start with Senator Laird, and you'll be starting with item one, SB 29.

Just me?

Yeah.

And whenever you're ready, sir.

Thank you. And I know I have another Bill and I'm presenting a Bill for Senator.

That's correct, for Senator Reyes. Yes, you can do all three of those right now, since you're the prompt Senator this morning.

Bless you. So, I am here, as you said, to present Senate Bill 29. This Bill was narrowed in the Senate Appropriations Committee to take a sunset and to compile information on the number of cases that that are involved. In 2021, I authored Senate Bill 447.

At the time, California was one of five states in the United States where if you were entitled to a pain and suffering action, it died with you, if you died. There has been a backlog. There's still a two-year backlog in some counties.

But at the time, there was a particular backlog because of COVID and there were many, many cases where people were trying to just outweigh the person that had the action, and they died without getting redress. When this Bill was enacted in 2021, it meant that California was just one of four states where that was the case.

And many victims, including victims of asbestos poisoning, elder abuse, low wage workers, were those that either might not have had the resources or might not have had the adequate representation and as a result, lost the benefit. And people would not be inclined to settle because they thought they could outweigh this situation.

And it is those representations of workers and asbestos and others that's the reason the California Labor Fed and the California Building Trades, which are here, the Ironworkers and others strongly support this Bill and it's also supported by elder advocates because of the cases there. The Judicial Council has compiled statistics since that law was enacted in 2021.

And there have been exactly four cases reported to them where that law has been used. I do not want to completely misrepresent that because there's a number of cases where there are settlements, because now, there's no incentive not to settle. So, as opposed to prior to the law, people are settling cases.

The number of settlements has not been adequately compiled and that is one of the reasons that we took the amendment that says there will be information compiled on this. Although I, I should point out one of the interesting anomalies, which is that there's been a criticism that there's not information.

We have put in the Bill a compilation of information and yet, some of the interests, where their settlements asked not to have mandatory deportments of settlements because they don't want it to appear. If they settled, that was an admission of guilt.

And so, the irony is some of the people that say, "You don't have statistics," are the ones that don't want to help us compile the statistics with the amendment.

And so, I think that the additional cases in which settlements were made, the impact of the law has been reasonable, and the California defense counsel is neutral on the Bill.

So, if we let this law sunset, California would regress to being now just one of four states because another state's flipped since we did the 2021 law with an outdated and restricted restrictive standard and undoing the progress to protect victims' rights.

And these are especially important to stay at home parents, low income workers, elders, children, disabled—basically anyone whose losses are not primarily based on their income.

I have to confess that in my 11 years of legislative service over an almost 23 years period, I have not experienced the level of disinformation about a Bill as there has been on this Bill. So, let me go through a few of the issues to just clarify.

It's been said that with this Bill, the floodgates will open, and liability costs will skyrocket. Obviously, with the number of cases being so small, I think on face that is not true. But there's no evidence. Even with the micro reform of 2022 and the caps raising a bit on medical malpractice, there's been no evidence that there's been an increase in medical malpractice insurance rates since either law.

I think there's, there's one single doctor malpractice rate that was filed with the Department of Insurance that was 17 one-hundredth of a percent of a rate increase. But there is really no evidence that this has affected the rates on insurance.

It's been argued that this Bill is double dipping on punitive damages in relation to pain and suffering. And they're separate damages for separate purposes; they don't overlap. And for punitive damages, you have to prove malice, fraud, or oppression, which is a higher standard. And so, there is not an evidence of, of double dipping in reverse.

There's, there's been charts going around that you can get wrongful death and pain and suffering judgments. But all this is under the MICRA cap. So, the MICRA caps that were adopted in 2022 cover this.

On the Senate Floor in the debate, one Senator said, oh this, there was a payment of $3 million false on its face because the cap right now is about one sixth of that. And so, this also presumes human suffering is part of every wrongful death action. It is not.

It's been stated, and this is a key point, that the micro negotiations that resulted in Assembly Bill 35 in 2022, this was part of that deal. And it was understood that this would sunset. And everybody understood that as part of the deal. That is just plainly false.

And I was a principal co-author of that Bill on the MICRA caps, and I would not have done that if it undid the other law. And I think it's been run to ground in the Senate Judiciary hearing that it was not included in those negotiations. And that's a very, very important point.

And so, now, the question is, and one of the things that came up in the Senate Judiciary hearing, the chair asked one of the witnesses that if you exempted medical malpractice from pain and suffering, that if you were in a car accident and due to somebody's negligence and you had a negligent action and you had pain and suffering, why should, in medical malpractice, should you have an incident and then also be exempted from pain and suffering?

Why would you set up a law that had different tiers for different types of ways the action occurred? And I think that was a hard question to answer because there really shouldn't be.

And when you hear from one of the witnesses, you will hear of an actual case that I think strongly makes the case for why this needs to be done. So, that's as brief as I can make it. I know there will be an animated debate. I look forward to pushing back.

This just ensures that victims who endure intense pain and suffering are not died—denied—their justice because they didn't live long enough to realize it. So, with me to testify and support is Erica Cole from San Diego and her attorney, Amy Martel. And Amy Martell is here in case there's technical discussions.

And Jeremy Smith is here with the State Building and Construction Trades Council. At the appropriate time and when you have a quorum, I would respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay. Well, thank you so much. Whoever would like to begin first may begin.

My name is Amy Martell. My client here, Erica Cole—with Consumer Attorneys of California, and I'm a Plaintiffs Medical Malpractice Attorney. Happy to answer any questions.

Hi, good morning. My name is Erica Cole, and I'm here to speak on behalf of my mom, Pamela Graham. My mom was a kind, loving woman who is the heart of our family, and she was taken from us far too soon due to the negligence of those who were responsible for her care.

On November 4th, 2023, my mom was rushed to Scripps Memorial Hospital after taking a bad fall and fracturing her ankle. While in the trauma unit, she was immediately sedated and intubated. After her ankle surgery, my mom kept telling us something wasn't right. She struggled to breathe and said the breathing treatments weren't working.

She kept failing her swallowing test and felt weaker as the days went on. We watched her suffer and begged for answers, but none came. She was eventually sent to a skilled nursing rehab where her issues continued. On Wednesday, December 6th, 2023, I got the call my mom was being rushed back to the hospital because her blood pressure had plummeted.

She was barely hanging on. She suffered with acute hypoxic respiratory failure. The ICU Doctor informed us that he needed to put a camera into her airway and asked us to step out.

A few minutes later, we hear the page over the loud intercom, code blue. After six long minutes, they got a pulse and the Doctor said that he needed to talk to us. He said he found a blue medicine cap in her airway.

He told us it was from one of the medications she was given in November when she was intubated. The blue medicine cap had been lodged in her airway for over a month. Needless to say, this was all too much for her body to handle. She was on full life support while her body was shutting down.

I stayed with my mom by her side all those remaining days, holding her hand, talking to her, praying. But sadly, on Wednesday, December 13th, she passed away. What happened to my mom highlights the need for Senate Bill 29.

This Bill is about accountability and protecting all future patients and giving families the opportunity to honor the suffering of their loved ones who are no longer here to fight for themselves. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California to speak in strong support of SB 29. Our members, skilled workers in construction, demolition, plumbing, insulation, and other trades have built California from the ground up.

But too many of them have paid the price with their health and their lives due to long term exposure to toxic substances like asbestos and silica, on the job. These diseases are cruel.

Asbestos and silica-related illnesses, including mesothelioma and silicosis, often take decades to surface and almost more insidiously, sometimes they surface in family members of workers who bring home the toxic substances on their clothing. When they do, the prognosis is fatal, and the timeline is short.

SB 29 ensures that when a worker who has suffered unimaginable pain from toxic exposure dies before their case is resolved, their claim for pain and suffering doesn't die with them. That's not just a legal technicality. It's a matter of dignity and justice for themselves and their families.

Families who watch their loved ones suffer shouldn't be denied accountability just because that suffering ended in death before trial—sometimes trials that were strung out so that a worker would die. This Bill doesn't create new rights. It simply extends an existing sunset for a modest, common-sense reform that ensures companies don't run out the clock on victims.

It protects victims, it deters corporate negligence, and it upholds fairness. On behalf of the Building Trades and the workers we represent, we respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 29. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 29?

Mr. Chair and Members, Matt Broad for the Teamsters, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman. Jeffrey Tardigia, an advocate representing CARA Disability Health Care, and a few other things. Support.

Alan Pierce, representing Asbestos Workers Local 16 Retirees Club, and we strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Excuse me. Jeff Millar, Local 16 Asbestos Workers, last 60 years, and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Louie Costa, with Smart Transportation Division, in support.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, who's a proud sponsor—or co-sponsor—on behalf of our friends Consumer Watchdog, ACU—ACLU—California Action, California Long Term Care Ombudsman Association, California Black Women for Wellness Action Project, and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nina Weiler-Harwell with AARP California, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Members. Matt Cremens, California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Benjamin Henderson, from the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Elmer Lazardi, here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition?

The District Council of Mine Workers wanted to register their support too. I apologize for...

No, no problem. Thank you. So, we might need a couple of spots and before we have opposition present, if we can establish quorum, please, I do want to thank Assemblymember Hart for subbing in. I know you—we all have very busy schedules this time of year, so I really appreciate it.

[Roll Call]

All right, we've established a quorum and so, you may begin.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris McKayley, here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Respectfully to the author, Senator Laird, we are not in favor of what we view as an arbitrary extension of this four-year statute of limitations.

As the good Senator noted, his SB 447 from 2021 was scheduled to sunset at the end of this calendar year. At least from CJAC's perspective, we attributed this Bill, SB 447, that you're looking at extending as its purpose being the COVID closure of courts and the backlog there.

And that, for that reason, we had been neutral on the particular original Bill, 447. We do disagree in terms of we believe that this is essentially a third set of potential damages. As you're aware, today, the estate can bring a lawsuit that includes unlimited economic damages.

And yes, there is a higher standard for punitive damages, but the fact that they are available, that those are obviously subjective and immeasurable, at times, drives up the settlement value.

We believe that businesses, particularly small businesses, nonprofits, state and local governments that were cited in the SB 29 analysis before the Senate Appropriations Committee will be subject to additional awards and substantial settlements.

The other type of case, of course, is a wrongful death action by the family, which allows recovery of both economic and non-economic damages without limitation. And so, we view this Bill, in fact, as a third set of potential damages. We believe that the law should sunset.

The original purpose from our standpoint, was the COVID backlog in our court system. And therefore, we believe that this Bill should appropriately sunset at the end of this calendar year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Please.

Thank you. Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you. My name is Pedro Toledo, and I have the privilege of serving as the CEO for Petaluma Health Center, a federally qualified health center serving 42,000 people and with 12 sites across Sonoma and Marin—West Marin County—counties.

Unfortunately, Senator Laird's SB 29 would be detrimental to our mission of ensuring access to high quality health care for the communities that we serve. At Petaluma Health Center, about 87% of our patients are under 200% of the federal poverty level and 8% are uninsured.

FQHCs, like ours, supported MICRA modernization Bill, AB 35, that was signed in 2022. AB 35 was meant to stand on its own with significant increases annually every year in perpetuity. Unfortunately, by extending the sunset clause, SB 29 will result in significant costs for community health centers and patients, and healthcare providers will pay the price.

We respectfully ask the author and Committee to amend the Bill to exclude medical malpractice cases and to allow the MICRA Modernization Bill to stand on its own. California's health care system is already under attack in Washington. This is not the time to compound the harm by increasing costs and hurting access to health care.

SB 29 poses a significant risk to health and well being of communities we serve, especially immigrants, rural communities, low income families, and historically marginalized populations. And I respectfully ask for your no vote on SB 29. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 29?

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Robert Moocha with the California Chamber of Commerce, in line with the concerns stated by Mr. McKayley. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Shira Spector with Stone Advocacy, on behalf of California Orthopedic Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sher McHugh, representing California's Ally for Patient Protection, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Rowe, on behalf of the Physicians Association of California, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jessica Moran, on behalf of the California Association for Nurse Practitioners and the California Association for Health Facilities, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Molly Mallow on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. We are opposed and less amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Amber King, with Leading Age California, in opposition.

Thank you.

Danielle Parsons, with the California Assisted Living Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Good morning. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of prism, in opposition.

Thank you.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Farouk, on behalf of the California Hospital Association, opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OB GYNs District 9, the California Podiatric Medical Association, and the California Radiological Society, opposed unless admitted. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Katie Layton, on behalf of the Children's Specialty Care Coalition, here with an opposed unless amended position.

Thank you.

Randy Perry, on behalf of the California Primary Care Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jim Mullet, representing the Doctors Company and the 30,000 healthcare providers we insure in California. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Lawrence Gaydon with the California Dental Association, opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Sarah Bridges, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare District, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Angela Hill, California Medical Association, opposed unless amended.

Good morning.

Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions, comments, or motions. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to get my head around the moving of the goalposts with the extension. It was supposed to end this year, I guess, and now, we want to extend it to 2030. Is there an end in sight? I hear the sad stories, of course, but yet there are remedies within the current time frame.

So, to continue to extend, how does that give assurance just to how to manage through these issues? That concerns me.

Actually, I would disagree with the characterization of moving the goalposts because it is a matter of justice and equity that exists whenever it exists, and it existed for 60 years. And we redressed it in 2021. And I think that we took the sunset.

And I should clarify, at no time, because I presented that Bill over and over again, at no time was it represented it was just because of COVID. It was to address this over time and to do it. And the sunset was, in many ways, to prove that this wasn't the issue that was being suggested at the time.

And so, now, we have four years of experience. We have exactly four documented cases—cases plus the settlements. We have no increase in insurance rates on medical malpractice. I think that the sunset proved what the goal was at the time.

And I started this Bill with no sunset in it at all because I believe it is a matter of justice. It should be addressed.

And once again, because there might not have been adequate data collected, I took a sunset to be able to collect the data and to be able to have this conversation in a way that I believe will prove, in 2030, that there's been no dilatory effect in any way on insurance rates, just as there hasn't been in the last four years since this.

Well, okay, that's to be determined. However, when there is no sunset or deadline, then, and someone has passed away, through whatever circumstances, situation, and years have passed, what are you relying on? What records, witnesses that are still there or not there. I mean, it's just like never ending to keep this open.

And then when we get close to, and I'm sure I won't be here in 2029, 2030, when you go, just to keep pushing it out. The purpose of a sunset is to put a definitive—someone passes away, whatever the circumstances, it's always sad, of course, and the circumstances, but as time goes forward, that should be remedied during that period of time that those circumstances can be litigated.

And then now, just to keep pushing out the deadline, the sunset, I think is problematic.

Whether you have four or 40, it's still, it's still pushing out with no deadline, making it open.

You're mixing issues because there's a statute of limitations issue which is not part of this Bill, and there's an issue of a sunset on a practice.

Inform me then, what are the stat—what's the statute of limitations?

Let me let an attorney.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Again, Amy Martell. So, each case has its own statute of limitations. In medical malpractice, it's one year. So, even though this law may extend to 2030, cases can only be brought for one year. In general, personal injury actions, it's two years. So, you're not going to have a case from 2022 brought in 2030.

The statute of limitations will have expired. So, this doesn't extend the statute for individual cases. This would just extend the law to allow different cases and new cases to continue to be filed.

Okay. I'm not a lawyer. But you're still extending the opportunity to bring cases forward, regardless of the statute?

For the cause of action for pre death, pain and suffering.

And you may be mixing this up with a Bill that I'm going to present to you next week.

Oh, good.

That is related to the statute of.

Now you have time to think about the questions on that one.

That's just a heads up. Okay. All right, thank you very much.

Assemblymember Pacheco.

Turn this on. Thank you. And thank you, Senator. I know we had a couple of conversations about this Bill. I do have a question. And first, it will go to the author. I know SB 447, it had a reporting mechanism involved in that Bill, and that's where we get the four cases.

And in the analysis, it asks if there's a better method to obtain this information within the next years coming forward up till 2030. Is there a better mechanism to obtain information?

Just—I talked about it a little bit before you walked in the room, and yes, it's in the Bill. And I would like that mechanism to actually be better. But it is the mechanism that we negotiated, which basically says that we would have reporting on the settlements, as well as the actual cases.

So, in 2030 or whenever that sunset was dealt with, we would have a record that we don't have now that deals with the settlements that might have come from this. And we will also have that is not part of this Bill but is collected separately. We will have an absolute evidence about whether insurance rates have been affected.

They haven't been affected in, in the life of the current Bill, and we will have that as well.

And then, now to the opposition, and either of you can answer, but again, taking it back to the reporting component, because here in the analysis it says that there was four cases that were reported.

And I know it's there's—there—may be a detriment to our hospitals, but I would like to hear what your input is as to how to accurately report the information so that the Legislature can get the full information of how it could possibly impact or will impact our hospitals. So, either of you could take that.

May I First, I want to preface my response to you that CJEC did not raise any issue as it related to the reporting. I think that Senator, the author's description of the language certainly is accurate. I can't speak unfortunately, to additional information. Such as impact on rates.

I defer to perhaps some of my colleagues in the audience from the hospital or medical associations, for example in that regard. But at least it is, you know. Trying to pursue the settlements because today. We have just a lot of anecdotal information as it relates to the settlement piece.

So I couldn't be more helpful on that one.

I don't know if you want to add on.

In terms of capturing the data.

Correct.

I mean, I think because of the. Nature of these types of claims, it's always difficult to get some of this. Data, especially with regard to settlements, although. I mean, but it is important to capture the data so we can better. Quantify the impact on the rates increases. Certainly all settlements impact our rates as well.

It's not just the or cases that was had. There's generally more settlements than cases that make it through the court system. Right.

So it looks like we got someone that may be able to get a little insight from industry regarding data. Go ahead.

Yeah. Stuart Thompson, on behalf of the California Medical Association, I think the challenge and we have talked with the Author's Office about capturing settlement data. And we're not experts in civil procedure, but our understanding is, there's not.

You would have to basically cut kind of go out to lawyers and have them report what some of the settlement data was. We haven't seen a model kind of in the legal landscape that that requires this for, for other issues. So I think for us, capturing data around settlements is. Is challenging, just broadly speaking.

And so I think that's where when we look at the report, we think it's incomplete because it's only cases that go to full trial. At the same time, I'm not sure there's a policy solution from also capturing some of the data on settlements.

So I wonder if there's a way to also get information on settlements or is that just impossible to get information?

We would work with the on the Medical Association. It's not totally our expertise on the civil procedure side as far as what lawyer. So we would work with the Committee. But, but that's as, as we've explored this idea, there has been some challenges around. You would have to put a reporting mandate out and how that would come back.

Because I also think it's important to get this information for the Legislature so that we can make better and more informed decisions. But it looks like, I don't know if one of the witnesses wants to have some input on that. It looked like you wanted to answer.

Sure. As a plaintiff's attorney, one of the difficulties in reporting these types of settlements is that the defense counsel require us to sign confidentiality, including the medical insurance industry that's here today. They're the ones that require us to keep it confidential.

So there would need to be a compromise on both sides that we could report to the Judicial Council these settlements. Also, some of the problem with settlements is that they don't allocate. If there's multiple causes of action, settlement agreements don't typically allocate.

This much is for wrongful death, this much is for survival, and this much is for economic damages. So if you have a case with a total value of $2 million and you settle for $500,000, you don't know how much of that is attributed.

So there are some challenges that I hope we can all work together on to continue to be able to capture the important information that we need.

Okay. And I think that's important for us to get the information. So if there's a way to better get this information, I think that would be helpful. What I feel more comfort, and I know we've. The Senator and I have spoken.

What I feel more comfortable about this Bill is that there is a sunset so that we can gather this information so we can know exactly how the impact would be. But I think developing also a mechanism or something to some way to capture this information is also going to be extremely important.

So I am voting for this Bill today. But of course, you know, it can change when we get to the floor. But I'm hopeful that we can figure this out so that when it comes to 2030, we know what to do and we're not just extending out the sunset over and over and over again.

So that's my hope. And open door and open note conversations from everyone. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Assemblymember Stefani.

Thank you, Chair. Just to follow up on that point too, in terms of collecting the data, because I think it is important. And my feeling is if there was a lot of settlement data or cases to prove the defense bar's point, I feel like we would be flooded with it.

And I think that that will be necessary in the next four years. If you have a point to prove and you have the data, you should then turn it over to us so that we can then make informed policy decisions.

So if that data is out there, do everything you can to get it to us so that we can make that decision. I spent a lot of time on this on Saturday. I care deeply about this, and I want to thank you, Erica, for being here and sharing your story about your mom. It is moving.

And, and for me, I care deeply about victims rights. I started the Office of Victim and Witness Rights in San Francisco. And for me, this comes down to a policy question.

Do we believe, in California, that pain and suffering is recoverable in the survival action, no matter how that victim was injured, whether it's medical malpractice, whether it's a car accident, no matter what happened?

And if we believe that, we should do something about it, and the fact that someone may lose that recovery because they die, also known as the death discount, do we want to do something about that as well?

So the policy question for me is whether or not we believe pain and suffering is recoverable after the victim passes away. And in 1961, as we saw, the California Law Review Commission recommended that we do be one of those states that allows for this damage, as you know, as illustrated by what happened to your mom.

I think that's the important policy question here. I also deeply care about MICRA and I care about the deal that was struck and making sure there's access to health care is something, again, that I care deeply about.

But I think that this idea of double dipping is, I don't, I don't see the argument there, because we're not double dipping. It's a survival action, which is what the victim gets to recover.

And then you have the wrongful death action, which is brought by the family members of someone, and that's their own pain and suffering, their own economic damages, whatever that is. So I don't buy the double dipping argument. So, so for me, it's, it's just really.

Do we think, in California, are we, are we going to continue to be one of four states that doesn't allow this? Are we going to allow what I think is something that every victim who suffers in this way deserves? Do I. Am I sympathetic to the arguments brought by the Health Care Clinics and Planned Parenthood?

Yes, but again, I need the data to be able to make decisions around that, and it's just not here today.

So I think extending it for another four years and not in perpetuity, which would probably be the right thing to do, if you really, truly believe the victims deserve this type of recovery, is something that I'm willing to support today.

I really think that we should be a state that wants to make a victim whole and that we don't encourage defense attorneys. I also shouldn't. You know, I started out as a prosecutor, but then I went into insurance defense and I worked for a great firm.

But I tell you, there are attorneys out there that will prolong cases so that they don't have to pay that claim. And I don't think that's right. And so today I will be supporting this.

And I hope that in the next four years the defense bar and the medical field and those that I respect around everything that happened with the microdeal will come to us with information that should insurance premiums blow up for our healthcare clinics, should insurance premiums go so high that Planned Parenthood can't provide the services it provides that I care so deeply about, then we could reevaluate that in four years.

But for me, today, I will be supporting this. I think it's the right thing to do. And I think the policy question is, do we think victims should be able to recover pain and suffering after they die in a survival action? And for me today, the answer is yes.

Thank you. Is that a motion? Is there a second?

Second. Senator Connolly.

Yeah. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I want to thank the author for your multi year work on this issue. It's an important one. And I also want to thank in particular all the witnesses, but in particular one from my district, very well respected head of our health clinic in Petaluma.

And I'm going to cover some of the same issues, but just kind of my thinking, which I think will parallel Assemblymember Stefani's. But Mr. Toledo point blank said extending this sunset clause will result in increased costs.

What I'm understanding from your testimony this morning is to the extent we have data over the four years this has been in effect, that has not been the case. But if you can reiterate that both with regard to have we seen any resulting increase in malpractice insurance costs, have we seen a big spike in claims?

It sounds like, and this is perhaps before I walked into the room, there are four documented claims, albeit we don't know the full data around settlement. But if you can kind of just reiterate, where are we in terms of evaluating the claim that this would increase cost?

Yes, it is a reiteration and I'm happy to do it, which is that in the year since 2021, there's been no demonstrable increase in claims or rates, and that is true medical malpractice. Writ large, not even this very small sub segment of it.

And I think it's my view that will continue to be the case, but that's why we're going to try to collect data to make sure that we prove it.

Yeah. I think it's also important that we don't fall into conflating this with MICRA. And frankly, I also was a supporter of the MICRA deal. I think it plays an important role. But here though, there's no impact on MICRA limits.

I think the theory seems to be some sort of double dipping as it was stated, where in, in the just circumstance where a plaintiff who is claiming injury due to malpractice and non economic damages happens to die before trial, you would then have a situation where there could be theoretically both a wrongful death action on behalf of heirs or survivors as well as a survivor claim for pain and suffering.

For pain and suffering.

That's correct. And it also, the reverse is true if somebody were to die on the operating table, just an immediate death due to something that was related there. There's not pain and suffering because there's not been time to have it. So it is two separate things. Medical malpractice and not an action for pain and suffering.

Okay, so two separate claims, both on non economic, subject to MICRA limits. How do other states deal with this? I tend to agree with my colleague. If we want to redress injuries and claims, how do other states deal with this situation?

The analysis on page five took a stab at this. And, and I think they were basically saying the Committee's not aware of any analysis showing that the 45 or 47 states that allow pain and suffering do not also offer punitive damages. Because there was a suggestion that it was dramatically different in different states.

Some allowed pain and suffering with punitive, some didn't. But the analysis basically says they can't get there, but they don't have evidence that that's the case.

But they do allow for survivor claims on pain and suffering in other states.

Yes, yes, but it's a question of whether the analysis couldn't address whether that was every State of the, of the 45 or 47. Okay, great.

No, I think that that answers my questions. Again, I think we're all going to be interested in seeing additional data. We are mindful of healthcare costs, insurance premiums, particularly as they relate to clinics and the important work they do, but frankly, all healthcare providers.

But that having been said, I think it is important to recognize we are talking about different types of claims, different kinds of rights here and on that basis, I'm prepared to vote for this today and continue to kind of dig deeper as we go forward.

But it's important, I think, to cut through just the superficial appeal of the double dipping argument, the Conflation of Micro, which I think we all support and of course, ultimately just where we find ourselves as more and additional data comes in as well. So appreciate the discussion. Thanks.

Thank you. Assembly Member Hart.

I appreciate the work that you've been doing on this bill and the complexity of this, and I'm catching up as best I can. I do think this is an important reform and I'll be supporting it. And I also am concerned about the impacts on health clinics potentially.

And I understand the data isn't there to definitively answer that question, but the concerns that I'm hearing from health clinics in my district and in Planned Parenthood's communications, you know, are something that needs to be taken into consideration.

I hope that you'll do that and continue to work with folks and see where this goes as it progresses through the process.

Thank you.

Well, yes, Assembly Member.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I come from a very rural part of California that minutes matter. And right now we are many, many, many minutes away from a hospital or a clinic or a Doctor. And it's terrifying. And I had direct conversations with my hospitals that told me we're one slip and fall away from closing our doors.

We have a 20 to 30 day operating budget and we're just trying to keep the lights on and keep providers here. And additionally, where I'm from, it's hard to keep providers there and keep them practicing. And so something like this is something that I understand the data is something we're wanting.

It's not a chance we can take with people's lives in the Valley who don't have access to health care like we do in a lot of California.

So the main thing that I want to ask is if the Legislature, Legislature already struck a careful balance in AB35 to protect patients and preserve access to care, why are we reopening the door to increase litigation costs, especially when the health care providers themselves are the ones in the opposition saying that, I mean, they're the ones we rely on most for this care, telling us they can't afford or to absorb these costs.

Let me just restate something that I said earlier. It is not demonstrated that there are those costs and this bill will not drive rural hospitals out of existence. And I was going to mention in the close based on, on the testimony, and I'll do it now, the speaker and I in three years ago saved a rural hospital.

We I did a bill in 19 days to create a public hospital district. The district was five days old when the bankruptcy court accepted the bid, and we raised 60 million to purchase it. It had been in the red for a number of years. They were going to close and lay off 600 people this year.

Notwithstanding the federal Bill that just passed this year, that hospital is scheduled to be in the red for the first time in six or eight years. 600 people were not laid off. Health care to a disadvantaged valley, the Pajaro Valley has not been discontinued.

And if I thought for a second that this bill was going to endanger that, I would not be carrying it because it just goes back to the evidence that there's been no increase in rates, there's no increase in claims related to medical malpractice. And this there's no increased cost. It's threatened the viability of those institutions.

I appreciate you understanding the needs of the rural community. And, and unfortunately, it's just not a chance that I'm willing to take at this moment in time. So I won't be able to support today. But I look forward to ongoing conversations with you.

Great. Thank you very much.

Assembly Member Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author, thank you to all the witnesses. And I do want to kind of circle back quickly to this point about sharing of data. And I think both witnesses and parties have touched upon it.

Does the bill and I, like many, have spent an in an ordinant amount of time on this bill. So thank you. But it is important that we get this right. Does the Bill I can't believe you're thanking me for all the time you're spending on the Bill. That's right.

Does the bill require because these confidentiality agreements and provisions are really important because they do disallow sharing of critical information over these next four to five years to make sure that the data is accurate and that when this comes forward to another Judiciary Committee in 2030, we have the data.

Is there anything built into the law that says any confidentiality provision in a settlement agreement shall not, you know, disallow the sharing of the information with judicial counsel? Because without it, I think we're going to be back here in a similar situation. It shouldn't be incumbent on plaintiff's attorneys. It shouldn't be incumbent on the defense counsel.

It should be incumbent on both parties to have to share this information with judicial counsel. So I think if we don't build that in, I Just think we're going to be back at this situation where both parties are saying we don't have the data. And I think it's really one of these, everyone pointing to each other.

So have you built that in? And if not, I think it's critical. I actually don't think that the sunset date makes sense without it. I'm looking at the author, not the.

I meant we were, we were trying. To figure it out and you might need to fill in behind me.

But basically we honored the request of some of the opponents of not making it mandatory for, for providing the data of settlements because they, as I said earlier in the hearing, they, they do not believe settlements should be read as a admission of guilt and in a case.

And as a result, they did not want the mandatory reporting of every single settlement. And we, and how we structured it, honored that request. I can imagine we could revisit that.

And I think particularly after Assemblymember Pacheco's comments, we will take a further look to see if there are ways to restructure this and maybe talk to different stakeholders. But that was the pushback that we got and we honored in putting this together.

Yeah, I mean, it's this pernicious cycle. Right. That we don't have the data and we don't have the information yet. We don't want to put in place transparency measures to ensure that we have the data in the years to come. And I think that's why we're in this situation.

And I'm sympathetic to future Assembly Members and Senators who are going to be in this position in 2030 who are likely going to have the same conversation. And I think we're going to kick the can down the road and not actually deal with this issue unless we get it right right now.

So, you know, and I do look to our chair and our staff here who can probably come up with something that would work before this. I assume this would go to probes. I don't think that the Bill works at least the sunset. Right. Because. And my comments align with some Member. Stephanie, I think the policy is sound.

I think you only build in the sunset if it's actually going to lead to some sort of data and reckoning in 2030 where we can put this to bed once and for all. Because if we're just going to keep putting in sunset dates, it's political malpractice. I've said this before.

I think that this body does this way too much. You put in a sunset date to kick the can down the road and just enable a political battle that puts us on the crosshairs unnecessarily. So I don't want to do that.

And I don't think that we can solve this unless you require the data, the settlement data to be actually shared with judicial counsel, which will then give us all a very clear idea as to what's going on here. We'll have the insurance rates. We'll know exactly what's going on in that market.

We'll know how many settlements have occurred. And I think we can all have a very sound evidentiary record at that point to make a decision once and for all. And so I think it's incumbent on the author to make sure that happens.

So anyway, before you were here, I was watching the whole thing. I was watching the whole thing. Well, thank you. I spoke to the irony of certain interests saying we don't have the data and then them not wanting to mandatorily disclose the data. There is that irony that is out there with this, I think.

I'm obviously willing to consider it. That will get an even larger pushback from some of the. But we can have that discussion for the next year.

I do think we have to think of the future Senators and Assembly Members and the whole system. I think we're doing a disservice not to do it. And so it's beyond us. I think it's bigger than you. It's bigger than us here. I am supporting the Bill today.

I do think that the sunset date only makes sense if you actually put some teeth into it otherwise. And other Members have spoke very eloquently, you know, including Assembly Member Pacheco. Otherwise, it's just, why are we putting it in there? I mean, there's no reason to put it in there if the data is not going to be there.

So I will support it. So thank you very much.

And I would just say Assembly get used to it, unfortunately, because we get sunsets on stuff all the time. And I agree with you.

They're just done in some ways just to not necessarily just kick the can down the road, but to re engage on the argument at a later date so that those that don't necessarily support the bill have another crack at trying to defeat it. I mean, that's not even specific to this particular bill.

That just happens all the time. As was mentioned earlier, Senator Laird did not want. He wanted to remove the sunset altogether. And so I just want to first of all thank our survivor victim for being here and for your testimony.

I think that that's the underlying purpose of why we're here is just that is to protect families like yours to the best that we can.

And I don't, as others have said, don't believe that this. Look, the microdeal was a huge deal. It was historic. But it was also, it took many years to get to. It was hotly kind of debated. It was intense negotiations. This was meant to be part of it. It would have been included.

I don't think it was oversight. I think because the fact is the micro caps still apply even here. And to the argument that the floodgates will open while they have saying they will open as opposed to the floodgates had opened or already have opened are two very different things.

And the fact that there isn't evidence that the floodgates have opened to me already shows that this is working and doesn't have the deleterious impacts that that were suggested back when the bill was first passed.

As to Assembly, Harabedian's points, which I agree with and I think the author agrees with because he's accepted amendments that actually have in the bill. If you go to page two or two, onto page three of the bill itself, it requires plaintiffs to submit information regarding settlements to the Judicial Council.

Any other party may submit the data and that was a request of opposition and the defense bar and the hospitals and so on and so forth. They don't. So on the one hand they're saying, oh, we're going to be overrun and this, that, and you have to look at the data.

But they don't want to give the data.

So if we just want to get rid of the sunset altogether and go forward, I would be fine with that because it seems clear that those that are clamoring that the data shows all these bad things are happening, but yet aren't willing to show that data, aren't really serious about wanting to resolve this issue or show that there is some impact that then in 2030, Vice Chair and I won't be here, but others can then take action on say, you know what, the impacts weren't as bad, but there were some impacts.

We can do something about it because we actually have data. They don't want to skip that data. I mean, if I'm here in 2030 and they still oppose giving data, I'm like, okay, get rid of the sunset altogether because you don't have any argument against it.

So I think quite obviously support the bill, would like to be added as a co author and would like to certainly work as best we can and Certainly with our staff here, if there's a serious effort to have data sharing in a way that protects, you know, protects the detailed information of those involved in the settlement, but gets the raw data, the kind of the generic data of how many settlements are occurring and what have you, I'm all for that, but it's going to take two sides to get to that.

And at this point, if only one side is interested in doing that, I support the author and support, at the very least, extending the data so it gives time to hopefully come to that place. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. And with some amusement, I'm enjoying Assemblymember Harabedian's comments because I hope for enough data because my own statute of limitations will kick in and he will be presenting the bill. I want to take this discussion as the close. In essence. It was so good about parsing the actual facts around the situation in terms of.

This is a standalone policy. There's been no evidence of higher rates or higher cases. The 2021 bill was not designed to just be for Covid. The 2022 microdeal did not include this. I think that was offended in a good way. So I.

And I particularly want to thank the witness, Erica, because I know how hard it is to tell a personal story like that. And yet it so made the case for why we're here right now. So I would respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Motions due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that bill is out. Thank you. Laird. Item 10. SB697. Oh, yeah, sorry. Item 3, SB294.

Okay, are you ready? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm presenting Senate Bill 294 on behalf of Senator Eloise Reyes. And this Bill will protect families by ensuring a worker's emergency contact is notified when they're arrested or detained by state or federal law enforcement.

It will ask the Labor Commissioner's office to create a template for employers to annually inform their employees about their rights, both state and federal, to ensure equal and just treatment under the law. The Bill, sponsored by the California Federation of Labor Unions, SEIU California, the Central American Resource Center.

It is a Latino caucus priority, and amendments taken in the Senate in May removed various business organizations opposition and they went to neutral. So there is no registered opposition on file at this point. Here to testify with me is Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions and Jamil Hunt with SEIU local USWW.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair members Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions. We are proud to co sponsor SB 294, which will educate workers and employers of labor and civil rights under state and federal law, again promoting adequate, just and equal enforcement.

California workers, unions and advocates have fought tirelessly to ensure the strongest worker protections in the country. And however, the Federal Administration has enacted a wave of Executive orders that weaken civil and labor protections, making it difficult for workers to understand understand their rights.

In addition, the Federal Administration has started mass layoffs of federal workers and gutting of federal agencies tasked with enforcing federal labor and civil rights laws such as the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and most recently the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Apart from dealing with these significant impacts, our agencies in the state have a chronic understaffing issue which makes health and safety law enforcement incredibly difficult. And given these enforcement challenges at both the state and federal level, workers understanding of labor law is incredible, incredibly critical.

So they can speak up or report when there are violations in their workplace. One of the best ways to prevent violations is to empower workers to protect themselves whenever possible. Not only does this help reduce the burden on our understaffed agencies, but it helps protect workers by helping prevent harm altogether.

We've seen in addition, the Federal Administration's policies are targeting the most vulnerable workers and confusion over state and federal laws often scares workers into remaining silent. So ultimately, when workers are not aware of their fundamental laws, labor and constitutional wise, it is much more likely that those rights are going to be violated.

Again, this Bill SB 294, will be a powerful educational tool to help workers understand their rights, secure them in the workplace and and to feel empowered to enforce them if necessary. Thank you so much and we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Morning Chair Members. My name is Jamil. I've been security officer for 11 years. And served as shop steward in my workplace. I am here in support of SB 294 because I've seen firsthand what happens when workers aren't told their rights.

Recently, while dealing with an OSHA posting by my employer, I noticed they had omitted a second page of the report. That page explained to employees their protections for reporting safety hazards. By excluding this page, employees were actively being deprived of information that would encourage them reaching out.

This is just an example of the ways companies make it harder for employees to know their rights. Without this knowledge being readily available, workers can't protect themselves or hold the proper party accountable when something goes wrong. SB 294 would change that by requiring the Labor Commissioner to to create a simple, clear template outlining workers rights under state and federal law.

Employers would have to give this notice to workers every year so no one is left in the dark. This is especially important now with rising threats from wage theft and unsafe conditions to immigration enforcement in the workplace. Many are scared to speak up and more don't know how.

This Bill gives them the information they need to stand up for themselves and help employers stay compliant. When everyone knows the rules, we have safer, fairer workplaces. And that's why I respectfully ask you say aye on SB 294. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 294?

Jeff Tardagea, an advocate in support of this Bill, CARA and various other disability organizations.

Thank you.

Morning Chair members, Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, CARECEN who's a co sponsor of this Bill.

Thank you.

Marika Yoshihar on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, in support, thank you.

Renee Bayardo for SEIU California in support.

Thank you.

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Thank you.

Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Louie Costa on behalf of Smart Transportation Division, in support.

Thank you.

Navnit Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association, also in support.

Thank you.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Thank you.

Morning chair Members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Thank you.

Saveena Takhar with the Consumer Attorneys of California in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 294? All right, bring it back to Committee. Are there any motions? We'll move the Bill. Motion. Is there a second? A motion. Second. Any other questions or comments? Well, thank you, Senator Laird. Thank you, Senator Reyes, and thank you for stepping in for her.

You know, I, I also, and I obviously want to thank the worker voice and everyone for coming together. How important, unfortunate yet important this legislation is right now. I also want to thank the business community, the employers. In years past, this would have been something that they would have fought to the bitter end, quite frankly.

Any other obligations or what have you. I think they also recognize the moment and really appreciate that you were able to, Senator Reyes was able to remove the opposition there thanks to the work of the sponsors and the authors. So with that, would you like to close?

Just, I respectfully ask on behalf of Senator Reyes for an aye vote. Thank you.

Motions due pass to appropriations. Kalra? Kalra, aye. Dixon? Dixon, aye Hart? Hart, aye. Bryan? Connolly? Connolly, aye. Harabedian? Harabedian, aye. Macedo? Pacheco? Pacheco, aye. Papan? Papan, aye. Sanchez? Stefani? Zbur?

All right, that Bill is out. Thank you. And then I believe you have one more, item 10 SB 697.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Senate Bill 697 streamlines and modernizes the stream system adjudication process by allowing the State Water Board to utilize modern technology when conducting investigations into water rights claims, rather than requiring, in person, field investigation.

This law has not been updated since 1976, and since then, there are so many different increases in technology, whether stream gains, stream gauges, different drone things that don't require somebody to go out every single time physically to look at this. We worked with stakeholders to amend this bill, and as a result, they removed their letter of concern.

There's no opposition. The bill has received no, No votes. I would respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 697? Is there anyone here in opposition to SP 697? All right, bring it back to me. We have a motion. Is there a second? A motion? A second. Thank you, sir. Would you like to close? Oh. Oh, sorry. Assembly Member Papan.

As I said, when it came to Water Parks and Wildlife, this bill is a unicorn. If you don't have people fighting about water rights. Yeah, that's true. Something. Thank you, Senator, for bringing it.

Thank you.

The unicorn close. I like it.

Would you like to close?

I appreciate that close. All right.

Motions do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that bill is out. Thank you. Thank you very much. If we get a motion on the consent calendar, please. A motion and a second, we can go ahead and take roll call vote on the consent calendar, please.

Consent includes SB 410, Grayson as amended, SB 446, Hurtado to appropriations, SB 471, Menjivar as amended to appropriations. SB 517, Niello, two appropriations, SB 609 layer two appropriations, and SB 793, Archuleta, two appropriations. [Roll Call]

Consent calendar is out. All right.

All right, everybody. We are. We are back in orders, kind of. I want to thank Chair Umberg. You're getting your steps in a little bit this morning, but thank you for returning. We. Would you like to do number two first? SB 37.

SB 37. Happy to do so. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the patience of the Committee. I was here then, had a run over. Stand your own Committee. I'll see many of you later on today. I want to thank Nick Leidyke once again for your hard work on this bill.

This bill concerns attorney advertising. I know what you're thinking. Boy, I wish we had more attorney advertising. But this doesn't actually provide more attorney advertising. What this bill does, it acts to strengthen attorney advertising ethics and rules surrounding attorney advertising.

Sadly, unethical attorney advertising misleads consumers who lack legal expertise, often to distinguish between deceptive promises and legitimate legal representation. False guarantees, misleading settlements, undisclosed conflicts of interest erode public trust. Current law and statute and ethics rules regulate attorney conduct for advertising. However, these rules are currently enforced by the California State Bar, the regulatory arm for California's attorneys.

They are required to investigate, prosecute every violation. What this bill does is it updates attorney advertising definitions, adding prohibitions. Paired with authorizing citizen lawsuits against unethical attorney advertising, it's a necessary step to protect consumers, supplement state regulatory efforts, and determine misconduct among attorneys. This gives individuals the ability to hold unethical attorneys accountable.

With me to testify in support is Ms. Savina Takar. Takar, thank you. Representing the consumer attorneys of California.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Sabina Takar, the consumer attorney, is a proud sponsor of this bill. This bill addresses a gaping hole in current law. Right now, there's many ethics rules attorneys have to guide by, especially for advertising. The state bar is enforcement capping is illegal.

Attorney legal referral services have to be certified with a state bar. And right now, there's no enforcement for that other than the state bar. And so when the state bar does enforce it, let's say they get a complaint, sometimes they'll look into it. They'll tell the attorney, this ad is unethical, please take it down, please correct it.

That's not a big enough deterrent effect. So what the bill does is adds consumer remedies to the mix because we want to make sure that the ethical attorneys are on the same footing as unethical advertisements. We want to bring everyone up to the current standards and make sure that when they're not, they're held accountable.

We've been working with many stakeholders on this bill, many different attorneys firms, the State Bar, the employment lawyers, and also Walker Advertising, they have a supportive amended position. They specifically are working on joint advertising.

So we're getting a handle on the current rules for joint advertising, working with them in the State Bar, and are working those remaining issues. Meet your dry vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 37?

Mr. Chair and Members. Mike Belote, California Defense Counsel. Support.

Thank you. Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates and support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 37?

Good morning. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Great. Just want to clarify that we were previously opposed, but now we have a supportive amended position on the bill. So good morning, Mr.

Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Nicole Cordero, and I serve as Vice President of Marketing and Community Affairs for Walker Advertising and Los Defensores. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to all of you today.

For over 40 years, Walker Advertising and Los Defensores have helped bridge the gap in legal access for underserved communities throughout California. As you know, Hispanics represent over 40% of the population, a community that has long faced barriers to legal support. Los Defensores was founded in 1984 by Marianne Walker.

She was a Latina court translator in Los Angeles who saw firsthand how language and cost kept many from understanding their rights. At the time, very few attorneys served Spanish speaking clients. So she created a platform that gave people the ability to connect with trusted legal help, regardless of income, immigration status or English proficiency.

Since then, Los Defensores has become a deeply trusted resource in the Hispanic community, where almost 4 million Californians have used our services to access Spanish speaking attorneys and legal education.

Just in the past five years, we've expanded our mission where we are developing free educational content, launching right awareness campaigns, and investing in programs that uplift and empower our community. No matter the time of day or where our consumers are. We strive to be a helping hand when people feel most vulnerable and lost that work.

And the trust that we've built is only possible with the revenue generated from our joint advertising model. So if SB37 moves forward without amendments, that model is at risk and with it, the services that so many depend on. Just this year, we've provided funds for scholarships for future law and journalism students, supported sorry.

Supported fire relief and food banks, and have partnered with nonprofits that serve at risk youth and families throughout California. We urge you to consider the unintended consequences this bill could have on the very legal. On the very communities that we aim to protect.

And we'd like to work together to ensure that access to legal representation remains a right and not a privilege. Thank you.

Thank you.

TJ Hi, my name is TJ Kitchen. And thank you Chairman Kalra, Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak with you. I'm here on behalf of Walker Advertising and the many small and mid sized law firms that pool their resources through our joint advertising model to expand access to justice.

These firms don't have a budget for large scale outreach on their own, but by working together through our platform, they're able to educate the public and connect underserved communities and especially Spanish speaking consumers with qualified help.

Walker Advertise operates under the business and professions code section 6155H, a statute our founder developed in collaboration with the State Bar and the Legislature to create a framework for attorneys to advertise collectively without referring or matching clients.

For more than 30 years, this joint advertising model has served as a transparent pathway for educating the public and connecting Californians with experienced vetted lawyers when they need help the most. We support the goals of SB 37. We agree there's too many deceptive advertisers out there and it's a serious problem. And we believe that accountability is needed.

But we also believe that joint advertisers who operate transparently under the law deserve parity with law lawyer referral services and solo advertisers right now. The bill gives other models a safe harbor, but excludes joint advertisers and their attorneys that advertise through the model despite being equally codified and subject to enforcement actions. We support with amendments this bill.

We thank the Committee for acknowledging the ongoing stakeholder discussions and we look forward to seeking solutions that allow joint advertising and to protect California consumers. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition or kind of support opposition for SB 37? All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions, comments or motions. Senator Pacheco.

Thank you and thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. It seems like there are still some concerns with respect to this bill and I'm curious to see if there's still ongoing conversations that are happening because it seems like some of these concerns are legitimate and I'm hoping they can be resolved.

But I want to hear from the author to see how we are.

Thank you for the question. We are engaged in continuing conversation with both the sponsors as well as those who have concerns. One, I think it would be illegal for us to limit, for example, one's First Amendment Right. To advertise so long as they're doing it that's consistent with the law and not misleading consumers.

And I'm confident we're going to get to a place where folks can certainly advertise in an ethical. Whomever wishes to advertise can advertise in an ethical manner.

Thank you. And I don't know if the opposition wants to mention anything about conversations that are happening.

We've had conversations with the CAOC and we'll continue to do so. We have an appointment set with you later in the month. We're hoping to extend that to an hour.

An hour with the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I think it's between two.

I can't even get an hour with them. Can I get an hour with you too, Mr. Chair? No, I'm just kidding.

So we're looking forward to working with you all. We have worked with the State Bar and the Legislature before, and we know we can get to a place where everybody should be happy with the outcome. We want to be part of the solution and not the problem.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I will be supporting the bill today and I'm looking forward to seeing the outcome. Thank you.

Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am supporting the bill. I have a quick question regarding the State Bar's role. So I. You said that there's not enough enforcement. Is there enforcement or not enough or. Because that is the State Bar chief trial counsel's role to enforce on this. So what is. Just give me some background, some context.

What's happening or not happening?

Sure. Not to speak for the State Bar, from what we're aware of is that when an ad is reported to the State Bar, they review it for whether or not it's ethical and they'll come back to that advertiser and then ask them to fix it. So it's more of a fixing process. Corrections.

So for us at consumer attorneys, we feel that when there is a right to fix like that, then there's not really an incentive to comply in the first place because what's the really the harm is only that you're going to correct the ad.

So you got away with having this unethical ad that's been getting a lot of consumer attention, misleading people, and the solution is just merely fixing it. So instead, this bill has more teeth to where we want to make sure people are incentivized to comply before that prep process happens. Okay.

And then the second question, Is there any deterrent in the proposed bill, in the bill that would prevent other Lawyers, trial lawyers, from being critical of other law firms. So it's just a way to be anti competitive, if you will. Is there a way to protect against that?

Correct. Yes. It has to be a misled consumer. So a consumer sees the ad, they're misled, so they have the right of action. It's not just a citizen lawsuit or the advertisement.

Okay.

Very good.

All right, thank you very much.

Any questions or comments? Do we have a motion with a motion. A second. I want to thank you, Senator Umberg, for bringing this forward.

I want to thank the sponsors, you know, for once again taking action to kind of police your own industry, which is not something you always see from a lot of organizations that do that willingly and proactively and to the concerns that were raised. I think that we all look forward to resolution.

And all jokes aside, I know Chair Umberg is generous for this time to the greatest extent possible, but we are also here to help, working with the chair and with our Committee, Joint Committee staffs, and the State Bar Ethics Council to ensure that we can deal with that. It's a relatively narrow issue.

I believe that's that's impacting you, and I think that we can get to a resolution there. So we'll look forward to those continued conversations. Would you like to close?

Thank you. What the Chair said urge an Aye vote. Thank you.

Motion do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. And we'll go to item eight, which is SB 645.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. SB 645 deals with peremptory challenges. And I know a number of Members of the Committee have tried cases and are familiar with peremptory challenges. For those who are not familiar with it, there are two kinds of challenges that exist with when a jury is sought.

One is for cause, where a juror has a conflict, if you will, in trying a case. In other words, they may be related to one of the parties or the lawyers or they know the judge personally, that kind of thing. That's a challenge for cause. Then there are peremptory challenges.

Peremptory challenges are challenges for whatever reason, provided they are not illegal. So in other words, provided that you're not challenging someone based on certain protected criteria, for example, based on race, based on religion, based on ethnicity.

And what this bill does is this bill in some ways builds on the efforts of then Assembly Member Weber, now Secretary of State Weber, from several years ago in enacting a bill that pertained and applied only to the criminal courts. There was a five year sunrise for civil matters, and that sunrise is about to occur.

And what this bill does is it basically exempts civil matters, except for in a fairly broad class of actions, actions that relate to issues concerning discrimination based on some of the criteria I mentioned before, whether it's race or disability or religion, that kind of thing. They are exempt. It's a rather complicated process now that exists in law.

The process is when someone challenges another juror, the other side can object. If the other side objects and says, I think that counsel who's challenging that juror is challenging that juror for an improper purpose, the burden then shifts to the side that is challenging that juror to demonstrate it's not a subterfuge.

So, for example, if you say I'm challenging juror number three because I think they look like they're sleeping, and it turns out that juror number three is in that one of those protected classes, then the court has an inquiry as to whether or not that's a subterfuge or not and must find by clear and convincing evidence that it's not a subterfuge, which is reviewed de novo by the Court of Appeal.

I realize that that's a very challenging process. I personally, and I know the Chair is familiar peremptory challenges. I personally believe I'm an expert with respect to preemptive challenges, just like every person who's ever tried a case. But I'm almost always wrong.

So peremptory challenges, I think if I had my way, they would be completely eliminated in California. But I don't have my way. And so thus we have this bill. Many other states actually do eliminate peremptory challenges because their history is one of severe bias and discrimination.

They've been used for improper purposes, and I believe they're simply born of bias and prejudice. But nevertheless, we have this bill before us today. With me to testify is again Ms. Takhar from the Consumer Attorneys of California. And I also see Mr. Belote here. So once again, we have the defense counsel and consumer attorneys. Is getting to be somewhat of a pattern. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Saveena Takhar at the Consumer Attorneys of California. Here as a proud co-sponsor of SB 645. We thank the Committee for their analysis. We also want to thank the Secretary of State, the criminal defense lawyers, and other stakeholders for their engagement. The bill that you see before you today is a result of months of collaboration.

As reflected in the analysis, SB 645 strikes a careful balance. It recognizes that while peremptory challenges must be scrutinized in cases implementing classes in civil rights, such as Unruh, Bane, FEHA, hate crimes, and dependency matters, the procedures are not necessarily well suited for all of civil cases. So we believe this bill expanding to those categories makes the most sense at this time. We will continue to work with other stakeholders as needed.

We haven't gotten any concrete answer back from the Secretary of State whether their opposition is fully removed, but they were opposed to the prior bill, and we have since added every single category that they asked for. So we believe that we've satisfied their concerns, but we're happy to continue working on the bill.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Pardon me. Mr. Chair and Members. Mike Belote for the California Defense Counsel. As you may have intimated from Senator Umberg's comments, you know, we have 250,000 lawyers in California and another couple thousand judges, and there's about that many opinions about peremptory challenges. These are debated year after year.

They will be for the balance of my career and your career here in the Legislature. There are those who want to get rid of them entirely, as Senator Umberg mentioned. This is a compromise. In our view, the history of the Batson and Wheeler challenges is almost entirely one of criminal cases, and that was reflected in the analysis you have today. On the other hand, there are sensitive cases involving discrimination against protected classes.

And so the compromise is those cases will be brought within the gambit of Assembly Member Weber's bill, AB 3070, from several years ago. But if you have a general slip and fall case, we will continue to use Batson and Wheeler challenges to prevent bias in jurors. And like I say, the debate will continue. But we think it's a fair compromise that doesn't upend jury selection in general civil cases, but recognizes the sensitive nature of some of these discrimination claims. So we would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 645? Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 645?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, statewide association criminal defense lawyers. We are a tweener right now. We were the sponsors of the then Assembly Member Shirley Weber's bill 3070 in 2021, and we've been working with the author's office, the sponsors of this bill. We're much closer. We're not quite there yet landing the plane, but we're definitely much closer. So we'll continue to work hopefully before this bill moves forward after this Committee.

I want to also thank the Committee staff for being engaged on that. Also, I've been authorized to convey a message from Secretary of State's representative who is stuck at another meeting right now, and they are in the same place. We're much closer. We're not quite there yet. But I do want to thank the author and sponsors and the Committee for the ongoing discussions and happy to answer any questions if any of the Committee Members have.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in opposition to SB 645? We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments, motions? We have a motion and a second. Any comments or questions? When I authored the Racial Justice Act, it was done somewhat in parallel to Secretary Weber's bill.

My bill also had provisions guarding jury selection, but hers were far more detailed. And so I was it kind of deferred if that bill passed. If it didn't, then it would kind of the Racial Justice Act would be a fallback. And so it was historic when that bill was passed regarding criminal cases.

I also believe that bias, implicit bias, and racial bias plays a role in every aspect of our society, whether it's a civil rights case or not. I think that it could be a slip and fall, it could be a medical malpractice. Race has a way based over the generations affecting every aspect of decision making, whether it's conscious or not. And that was the aspect of the Racial Justice Act was it doesn't matter if it's conscious or not, it's implicit bias.

That being said, I really appreciate and understand that concerns of the broader application of it, particularly as it applies to the way jury selection is currently done in civil cases. And so the narrowing it to civil rights cases where it's very explicitly involves categories that we want to be more cognizant about and more protective of.

Totally understand that. And just would ask you to continue in particular your conversations with Secretary Weber's office. As you know, this is something that I know is still very important to her and to a lot of advocates that understand the need for us to kind of categorically do what we can to root out these biases, particularly in our justice system. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your work in this space. So far as I know, we've accepted every proposed amendment by the Secretary of State. I look forward to hearing if there are additions. And just to be clear, this has no applicability in the criminal realm. This only applies, this bill only applies to civil matters. And with that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you.

Motion's do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill is out. Thank you. In next in order is Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, item 4, SB 303. And, Senator, looks like you have two items before us today.

All right, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, Committee Members. And I want to first thank you all for your hard work on this Bill and I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. I'm pleased to present SB 303, the Public workplace Bias Mitigation and Employee Protection Act.

Amendments being taken in this Committee substantially narrow the provisions of the Bill to remove the evidentiary exclusion. And instead of and instead we clarify that good faith admissions of bias made in these trainings are not discrimination within the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Amendments being taken in this Committee substantially again narrow the provisions of the Bill.

And we are grateful for your help and help in allowing us to clarify this. These amendments have moved employment lawyers, our consumer attorneys and the Chambers Coalition to neutral instead of opposition to this Bill. So the goal of this Bill is simple.

It's to protect the space for meaningful anti bias work while ensuring real misconduct is still investigated and addressed through proper legal or disciplinary channels. Public agencies are required by state and federal law to prevent and correct workplace discrimination, often through bias mitigation and anti discrimination programs. But these efforts face challenges.

For workers, participation in these programs can feel risky. Without legal safeguards. They may hesitate to engage openly and honestly out of their fear that their words and actions could be used against them. The result is these programs that are aimed at identifying and addressing bias could be undercut before they can even succeed.

And we cannot eliminate bias if we do not know that they exist and have a process by which we can interrogate and provide tools to help our employees address these issues. Bias elimination efforts are a proven tool to identify and to create safer workspaces.

And as the Federal Government steps away from anti discrimination enforcement, from affirmative action that includes diversity, from DEI initiatives, it is even more crucial that our state agencies include the necessary safeguards that employ anti bias trainings to work.

And let me be clear, the goal of this Bill is not to shield employees from accountability for discriminatory action for their discriminatory speech, or for sharing an intent to discriminate against their peers and employees. Despite our best efforts, hate is on the rise in this state. And that is what this Bill is addressing.

It is addressing the need for tools like anti bias trainings, tools that work, tools that have been vetted, tools that have been adopted by this Legislature. And SB 303 helps make that possible. With me today is Matthew Jackson with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, sponsors of this Bill.

Thank you.

Greetings, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'm Matthew Jackson with the County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office and as the sponsor of SB 303, we aim to proactively address and reduce the impacts of bias in employment.

This Bill will help us foster training in workplace environments where employees can take action to mitigate the role that bias plays in the workplace and in the case of public employers like the County of Los Angeles, in the delivery of public services. The bottom line is this-

We have a duty to prevent and correct unlawful discrimination and bias mitigation training, like those encouraged by this Bill, will advance prevention efforts to ensure better, to better ensure that workplaces are free from discrimination in our work.

I have seen firsthand how safe spaces for self discovery and introspection can make it possible for employees to understand how their personal bias might influence their own decision making and action.

And this in turn makes it possible for employers to identify points of intervention, including customized training or resources for employees that can foster a more positive workplace culture and reduce the propensity for instances of unlawful discrimination. Since initiating SB 303, we have collaborated with various stakeholders to address the concerns and strengthen the legislation.

Importantly, we have worked to clarify the scope of SB 303, which has included relocating the text to the FEHA and expanding the law to apply to all employers in the state. The Bill is not intended to apply to situations where an employee commits or admits to committing an act of harassment, discrimination or retaliation during a bias mitigation training.

Nor is it to prevent an employer from addressing unlawful discrimination or conduct that is actionable. By defining and encouraging bias mitigation training, this Bill represents a concrete step that this Committee can take to equip employers with needed tools to prevent the impacts of bias before they become actionable under the FEHA.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 303.

Inaudible.. With us on our concerns. We are happy to go neutral. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Thank you.

Jackie Stern on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California. Also appreciate the author's amendments and we are also neutral. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning Eric. Larry on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties of California and the Rural County Representatives of California in support of thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 303?

Briefly, Mr. Chair, Robert Mutri, California Chamber of Commerce. We were in opposition previously. Based on the amendments and Committee to treat public and private the same. We are now neutral. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to SB 303. We'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions, motions? We have a motion.

A motion. A second. Any other questions or comments? I want to echo the gratitude, Senator, for your work on this, working with our staff, working with concerns that were brought to you.

Although it narrows the Bill to some extent, it's also, it still remains a very important piece of legislation that I think still meets your underlying intentions for it. And so for your hard work on this, I want to thank you. Would you like to close?

Well, I want to thank you for that and want to thank everyone who worked with us on this Bill. We've in this Legislature have invested a lot of time, energy into ensuring that we have safe workplaces.

Anti bias is one of those tools in our toolbox to address discrimination, to make sure that all employees are treated fairly and have voice on their job.

This Bill was all about making sure that that tool was protected, particularly at a time where we see so much of our anti discrimination enforcement tools being stripped away by our federal, Federal Government. This makes sure that we can protect these trainings in California and with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Motions due pass.

Kalra? Kalra, aye. Dixon? Hart? Hart, aye. Bryan? Connolly? Harabedian? Harabedian, aye. Macedo? Pacheco? Pacheco, aye. Papan? Papan, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez ,aye. Stefani? Zbur? Zbur, aye.

All right, that Bill is out. Thank you. And then up next, you have item six, SB 464.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair and Members.

Do you have a motion, sorry.

Sorry about that. Thank you again. I'm proud to also present SB 464, a priority of the California Legislative Black Caucus. And I want to again thank the Committee staff for your hard work on this Bill and we are accepting the Committee's amendments.

These amendments simply clarify the definition of public sector workers to only apply to state workers, addressing concerns that have been raised by some of the local governments. SB 464 advances the goals of the Reparations Task Force by requiring specified state workers be included in the Civil Rights Department's annual pay data reporting.

In 2023, the task force, the task force on reparations, released a final report laying out policy recommendations to address the enduring harms of slavery and systemic racism, such as limited access to managerial and supervisoral positions for black Californians.

While California has made progress on pay equity reporting, the report makes clear we need a more complete picture of the workforce demographics. Data collected through the Civil Rights Department's pay data reporting already reveals serious gaps While white Californians hold 62% of all supervisory roles, black Californians make up just 4%.

Now more than ever, as DEI programs face threats at the federal level, California must stay vigilant in evaluating the progress of black Californians in the workplace, particularly in our state government, and continue to build real pathways to opportunity on our road to repair. And it's one thing to get access to a job at an entry level.

It's another thing to be able to be promoted, to be able to step into management experience, to step into supervisor experience, recognizing the skill and expertise that you have gained along the way. I'm committed to working with stakeholders to continue to improve and enhance these reporting requirements because we can't fix what we can't measure.

But also we want to make sure that we support this Bill today so that we can reach our goals for equity and access in the workplace. With me today to testify in support is Taneicia Herring with the California NAACP and Jessica Stender with the Equal Rights Advocates.

Good morning, Chair Members. Thank you so much for having me.

Taneicia Herring with the NAACP California Hawaii State Conference. SB 464 addresses the longstanding pay disparities that continue to harm black workers and other marginalized communities across California by expanding employer data reporting requirements, specifically breaking down wages by race, ethnicity, gender, job category, and et cetera.

This Bill does give us the tools we need to track progress and hold employees accountable. As the California Reparations Task Force Report says and clearly outlines, black Californians are earning just 72 cents for every dollar earned by white Californians. And it's not just our pay.

Our communities remain severely underrepresented in promotions and leadership, holding only a fraction of Executive level roles statewide. SB 464 is a direct response to these inequities. It takes seriously the recommendations of the Reparations Task Force by advancing, economic transparency, strengthening enforcement, and beginning to repair historic and systemic harm.

At a time when the Federal Government is rolling back workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, California must lead with courage. SB 464 is a necessary step toward a more just and equitable economy, a future where all workers are valued and paid fairly. With that, we would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members.

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates. I just want to highlight a kind of key issue that this Bill addresses, which is the issue of occupational segregation, which kind of describes the issue of women and people of color being concentrated not only in lower paying fields, but also even in lower paying positions within companies or in this case agencies.