Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning, and welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Please note that item three AB1957 Pacheco has been pulled from today's hearing. I would like to welcome Liz Ania, our new Republican consultant. In order for us to complete our agenda, allow everyone equal time. The rules for witness testimony at each side will be the two main witnesses.

Witnesses have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the bill. Additional witnesses should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the bill. We do have 10 items today. However, and it's not due to the luck of the Irish, but the hard work of our staff and all the staffs, over the authors that work with our staffs that we have seven of them on consent calendar. And so we'll start with the with the three well, we'll do the three right now as a subcommittee since we do not have a quorum.

So we'll start with item one, AB1827 Chen, Assemblymember, promptly here on time, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Chair, thank you so much for your time. It's always a privilege and honor to be in your committee, and I will not pinch you today since you're wearing green. I'd love to. Mr. Chair, it's your pleasure.

Yep. Whenever you're ready.

Again, thank you so much for all your time today. I really appreciate your committee staff. I wanna first thank them for all their hard work. I want to make sure to let you know that I'm accepting all the committee amendments today. AB 1827 addresses small claims court, which was really designed to provide a fast, low cost, and acceptable way to resolve routine disputes.

However, inflation and rising business costs have outpaced the current $6,250 cap for business. Today, small businesses frequently face unpaid invoices, minor contract breaches, and service disputes that exceed this limit are still too small to justify the cost and time required for superior court litigation. When a claim goes over $6,250 businesses are often faced and forced to make an unreasonable choice, either absorb the financial loss or pursue a much more expensive and time consuming legal process. While individuals in California can bring claims up to 12,500 in small claims court, small business remains still capped at $6,250. This outdated threshold no longer reflects the reality of today's economy and leaves many businesses without a practical way to recover legitimate debts.

AB 1827 addresses this issue by modernizing the small claim system. The bill increases the jurisdictional limit for small businesses to $15,000 per case and allows businesses to file up to three claims per year. Importantly, this proposal maintains all existing safeguards within a small claim system. Attorney representation would still be prohibited. Procedures would remain simple and accessible, and judges would continue to have full discretion and oversight.

By updating small claims threshold, AB 1827 helps small business enforce contracts recover legitimate debts and maintain financial stability. Here to testify with us is Melissa Cortez on behalf of the Collectors of California.

Thank you.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez on behalf of the California Association of Collectors, our members are largely made up of small businesses who collect on behalf of other small businesses and local services. Despite having the largest small business economy in the United States, California maintains one of the lowest small business, small claims limits in the nation. This framework leaves a gap for mid level disputes that are too large for small claims, but too small to justify full civil litigation.

The updates to this bill reflect today's economic realities and better serves both small businesses and consumers. We wanna thank the- the committee and the staff for the very thoughtful analysis. It does note, some concerns by the Judicial Council. And as the sponsors of this bill, we will be working with them to address any concerns moving forward.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1827? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1827? Oh, well, bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Dixon, any questions or comments you get?

Alright. Yeah. I I agree. I I didn't realize that some of these existing limitations on small businesses and given the challenges of being able to access Superior Corp being a higher lawyer, I think this this is a common sense measure that allows small businesses to resolve some of these smaller claims on their own directly with customers, whoever- whoever or other businesses that they have some conflict with that's a small monetary amount, but still meaningful to a small business. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for aye vote, Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much. Yeah. We'll go ahead and do that when we have a quorum. But thank you so much for the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Right. Up next, we have item two, AB 1916 Assemblymember Lee, Whenever you're ready.

You're an extraordinarily expeditious judiciary committee.

Yeah. Well, some of us.

Thank you, Chair, Members. I wanna begin by thanking the committee for their thoughtful analysis. AB 1916 will allow American sign language interpreters participate in the same collective bargaining process as other certified interpreters. In 2001, the legislature enacted the trial court interpreter employment and labor relations act to establish court interpreters as employees, allowing them to collectively bargain over wages, benefits, and working conditions. However, when the law was enacted, ASL interpreters are excluded from the statutory definition of certified interpreter.

This contri- contributes to recruitment attention challenges. Nationwide, there are roughly 10,000 certified ASL interpreters serving up to a million deaf or hard of hearing ASL users, creating significant access gaps. AB 19 simply updates definition of a certified interpreter in the law to include American sign language interpreters, allowing them to participate in the existing collective bargaining framework. This bill is sponsored by the California Federation of Interpreters. And with me today in support, I have Carmen Ramos, who's the president of the California Federation of Interpreters, and Ignacio Hernandez representing California Interpreters.

Respectfully ask your aye vote when the, appropriate time.

Good morning. I'm Carmen Ramos, president of the California Federation of Interpreters. And I would like to read a statement from the one and only ASL interpreter court interpreter we have in Sacramento. She is currently unrepresented, and, she wrote to us this. To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my strong support for the inclusion of American sign language ASL interpreters in the government code governing the trial interpreter employment and labor relations.

As the code currently stands, ASL interpreters are not included in the same statutory framework that governs spoken language interpreters. The exclusion create- This exclusion I'm sorry, creates significant disparities in representation, employment protections, and working conditions for those of us providing sign language interpretation in the courts. As the, ASL is the third most requested language in California's courts. Requests for ASL interpretation arise in many context, including but not limited to potential deaf jurors, deaf litigants, witnesses, and other court participants who require language access in order to fully participate in the judicial proceedings. Despite the high demand for these services, ASL interpreters, excuse me, remain excluded from the same employment and labor protections afforded to spoken language interpreters.

Without a functioning memorandum of understanding, MOU, I and other ASL interpreters remain unrepresented and without meaningful bargaining rights. While spoken language interpreters are able to negotiate terms related to wages, working conditions, unemployment protections, through established labor relations structures, ASL interpreters are left without similar mechanisms. As a result, we are subject to decisions and policy changes that affect the broader interpreter workforce, yet we have no formal voice or representation in those processes. ASL interpreters are also limited to 100 working hours per year as independent contractors because we do not have access to the intermittent part time interpreter classification available to spoken language interpreters. With such a small pool of qualified ASL interpreters, this restriction is detrimental to both interpreters and the court's ability to meet the growing demand for services.

Furthermore, ASL interpreters'- time? Okay. Mhmm. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Assemblymember, briefly, Ignacio Hernandez, also on behalf of excuse me, the California Federation of Interpreters. Thank you for allowing us to read the statement from the ASL interpreter of Sacramento County. She's actually in the middle of a murder trial and couldn't get over here this morning. Let me just add that according to the Judicial Council of California, there are two years ago, there were 55 ASL interpreters that were on their master list. Now it's down to 33, or I believe 39.

And so there's definitely a need to increase, and it's still not meeting the need, that, in court. So this will go a long way to help bring those, interpreters into our courtrooms and help the court users as needed. Thank you and ask for your support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1916? Name, organization, if any, and position on the bill?

Yes. Good morning. My name is Yvette Garcia.

Hold on one moment. Is it on?

Move forward.

Closer. Yeah.

There we go.

There you go. Good morning. My name is Yvette Garcia, Spanish court interpreter from San Diego with the California Federation of Interpreters, and I am here in support of AB 1916.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Rosa Treviso, and I am a certified court Spanish interpreter. I currently work at at the San Joaquin County Superior Court. I'm also the secretary treasurer for California Federation of Interpreters, and I am here to support AB 1916. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Maria Antonietta Pellicciari, and I'm Italian and Spanish court certified interpreter in the Los Angeles court systems. The Los Angeles court systems are also part of the region one of the California Federation of Interpreters together with Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo, and I'm the region one representative. Thank you. And I'm in support of AB 1916. Sorry. That was the most important part.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1916? Alright. Any questions or comments from the committee?

We don't we we don't have quorum yet. But the enthusiasm is jumping out of the seat from Assemblymember Harabedian. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask your aye vote when the time is appropriate and just a recognition that California laws for long- for too long not recognize ASL as language when it clears- clearly it is. There are 3,000,000 deaf and hard of hearing Californians out there that are served basically the course system by 33 people right now, and this would really alleviate that and help, more court interpreters for ASL. So we're simply asking I vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

Well, thank you for bringing this forward in recognition of the importance and the hard work of our, interpreters, our ASL interpreters, and just ensuring that our interpreters are have the appropriate representation as other court employees do. So let me get the opportunity. We'll be able to vote on this. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your time.

And for the record, item three, a B1957 Pacheco has been pulled from today's hearing. The only other remaining items, AB19, 771977, Erwin. And my understanding is some member Pacheco will be presenting that, when she gets here. If we can have madam secretary, if we can establish quorum, please.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We have established quorum. If we get a motion on consent calendar. Motion and a second. We have a roll call on the consent calendar, please.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out. I will go to item one of do we have a motion and a second on A motion and a second on AB 1827 Chen?

[Roll Call]

This is item 1, AB1827Chen.

[Roll Call]

And if we can motion is second on AB 1916 Lee. Okay. This is on Lee, AB 1916.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. And can we just run through a consent calendar again for those who just walked in?

[Roll Call]

Alright. So we have item four AB 1977, Irwin, and I believe it's Assemblymember Pacheco will be presenting on her behalf. Whenever you're ready.

Yes. Thank you. Mister chair and members, since I can't present on my bill, I'll be sending on another one.

At least you're presenting this morning. Okay?

I'll throw it out there. This is also a great bill. Wow. Also, I'm be presenting on behalf of Assemblymember, Irwin. And, this is Assembly Bill 1977. This bill sponsored by the secretary of state clarifies and corrects ambiguities and inconsistencies in the online notarization act.

AB 197 well, actually, SB 696 created a comprehensive framework for remote online notarization in California. But following enactment, the secretary of State with input from National Notary Association has identified technical inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unclear provisions that will hinder effective implementation. This bill provides necessary technical corrections and conforming amendments to ensure effective implementation, establish clear operational standards, and maintain consistency with existing notary public laws. The author has asked me to share that she will continue conversations with the chair, sponsor, and stakeholders to address concerns around the ability to charge fees for terminated notarization sessions. And with me today in support of the in support is a sponsor of the bill, the secretary of State's office, Tim

Cromartie.

Cromartie, deputy secretary of state for legislation. I'll hand it over to him.

Thank you. Mister chair and member, Tim Cromartie on behalf of secretary of State, Shirley Ann Weber. This bill is a necessary follow-up to s b 696 by Senator Portantino, which established for the first time a framework for licensed California notaries to conduct online notarizations. In implementing that groundbreaking legislation, the secretary of State's office has identified a number of issues, as has been said, that are significantly slowing our work and making that implementation more difficult. AB 1977 will address these deficiencies by resolving inconsistencies and definitions and procedures, updating existing licensing and training requirements, and providing clear guidance on how to authenticate digital seals.

In short, this legislation will expedite our implementation of online notarization in California. We thank Sylvia Earwin for her partnership and leadership in bringing this measure forward. With that, I respectfully ask your right vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of a b 1977? Is there anyone here in opposition to a b 1977? We already have a motion. Any questions or comments? Madam vice chair? I said I'm Marie Dixon.

Thank you, mister chair. I think the content of the bill I support except for the provision of increased fees. And there's a question, I think, just reading their letters with the Association of Notaries that once they begin a notary's online session, then they can't charge or be covered by the cost of their time Oh, sorry.

Thank you. But should I should so I just to just to repeat, I I support the online updating and technological improvement. Of course, I'm just concerned about fees. I they don't mention it, but I will mention it. They have not even spoken with them. But 5,000, dollars to which, my question is to become a notary. What is the current cost or notary license fee? What is that?

$5,000.

Oh, it's currently so this is not increasing?

No.

Okay. What about the subsequent years of 1,000? Is that an increase?

That's a standard. And the reason those fees are so high is that we've discovered, based on anecdotal information from other states that have implemented this system. Sorry about that. That many notaries can't do this on their own unilaterally. They need an online platform, a secure platform.

Of course.

And those are independently owned. Many of those owners will they'll start up and they'll cease operations and go bankrupt. To address that, we that that is extremely disruptive for notaries because they can't do online notarization without those secure portals. So the fees are a protective measure. They're relatively high, one to minimize fraud and two, to ensure that only legitimate platform operators are registering with the secretary of State's office.

So the the notaries don't oppose object to those fees? No. Okay. And then the annual update renewal 1,000, they're okay with that?

Yes. And that that fee is significant for the reason stated.

Okay. I generally am opposed to fees, but if the if the people being affected or have no problem with it, Yeah. And it's for fraud protection. I I will.

It does actually protect the notaries.

Alright. Well, I will be supporting the bill, and thank you very much.

Yeah. Regarding the if I can address, mister chair, one other item regarding the the fee for termination

Yes.

We haven't I don't wanna get in front of the author, but we have communicated to the author's office that as the sponsors, we're willing to drop that provision from the bill.

Alright. So we'll be hopefully, we'll be amended.

Yes.

Okay. Very good. Thank you very much.

Madam vice chair? Okay. Assemblymember Ziburr.

I think this is a great bill. Thank you, Secretary of State and the author for bringing it. I do think there's a legitimate point that was made in the one opposition letter, and it sounds like that's gonna be corrected. So thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Without any further comment, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

And thank you, and thank you all. And on behalf of Assemblymember Irwin, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out. Let's go through add ons. I—consent calendar add ons.

[Roll Call]

Okay. For item one, AB 1827, Chen.

[Roll Call]

Item two, AB 1916, Lee.

[Roll Call]

Alright. So I think.

Yeah, on. Right, so, we're gonna hold on. I think that we have one assembly member coming to add on, but I think everyone else is caught up.

Alright, madam secretary, if you do add ons.

[Roll Call]

We are adjourned. Thank you.