Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

I'm gonna start. Well, good morning. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda, allowing one equal time, the rules witness testimony on each side will be allowed two main witnesses each. Witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of our opposition to the bill.

An additional witnesses should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the bill. I'm gonna, wait a couple minutes. And if we don't have any authors in the next ninety seconds, I'll say, I'm gonna go up and start sending my bills. Is that a good idea? Assemblymember Stephanie?

Okay. Great.

We do not have a quorum, but we will begin with our first bill. Mister chair is Assembly Bill 2305 please.

Thank you so much, madam chair. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments and, thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill. The tough committee, but fair. AB 2305 directly prohibits corporate investors from controlling or interfering with litigation decisions. The principle is simple.

When you hire a lawyer, the person making decisions about your case should be your lawyer, not a private equity investor looking for profit. Until recently, the legal industry is one of the last industries not to take private equity investment because of long standing ethic rules prohibiting non lawyer ownership. However, models like management service organizations and alternative business structures have allowed investors to profit from legal services without technically taking ownership in the firm, while potentially exerting financial or operational influence.

To mitigate this growing risk, legislature passed a bill I wrote last year, AB 931, to reinforce California's prohibition on fee sharing with alternative business structures. Despite these guardrails, private equity has continued to find loopholes by creatively restructuring its involvement with the legal industry, such as classifying its investment as a loan to sidestep existing law.

Consequently, this risk litigation decisions, including whether to file a case, how to resolve the case, or to pursue a particular strategy being influenced by investor return expectations rather than putting the interest of injured individuals or consumers first. For example, aggressive loan repayment timelines could lead to firms needing to encourage clients to settle cases prematurely and for lower settlement amounts.

In response, AB 2305 takes a broader approach and blanket prohibits private equity firms, hedge funds, and other corporate investors from directing or influencing the practice of law. This bill is modeled after SB 351 from Senator Cabaldon, from last year, which was enacted to similarly reign in private equity in the medical profession.

In doing so, AB 2305 ensures that the decisions about litigation, including case strategy, resolution, and representation, remains solely in the hands of licensed attorneys and their clients rather than the investors regardless of how ownership is structured.

Access to justice means more than having the right to file a lawsuit. It means having an attorney whose only obligation is what is in the best interest of the client. With me to testify in support is Casey Johnson, president-elect of the Consumer Attorneys of California.

Please proceed. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Casey Johnson, president-elect of the Consumer Attorneys of California, testifying today as sponsor of AB 2305, an important measure continuing CAOC's work to protect California consumers with this bill focusing on the encroachment of hedge funds into the legal industry. AB 2305 protects a fundamental principle of our legal system. When a Californian hires an attorney, litigation decisions must be made by the attorney and client, not by private equity firms, hedge funds, or other corporate investors seeking profit.

While California law already prohibits non lawyer ownership and fee sharing, investors are increasingly using complex arrangements, like management service organizations, to exert indirect influence over legal decision making.

This creates a real risk that decisions about whether to file a case, how to litigate, or when to settle are driven by financial return rather than the client's best interests. AB 2305 is a necessary next step to prior bills CAOC has worked on and which have been enacted like AB931 with chair Kalra last year.

AB 2305 closes any remaining loopholes by clearly prohibiting any corporate influence over legal decisions, voiding contracts that allow that influence, and providing meaningful enforcement. This bill seeks to enact the same principles applied to medicine last year with Senator Cabaldon, SB 351, professional judgment must remain independent when people's rights and well-being are at stake. AB 2305 ensures that our justice system remains client centered, ethical, and free from outside financial control.

We have been and will continue to work with the state bar to ensure there are concerns are addressed. For all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any speakers in support of AB 2305?

Madam chair and members, Mike Belote for representing California Defense Council, pleased to offer our support to the author and sponsors.

Good morning. Nancy Peverini on behalf of the consumer attorneys, also in support Alameda Contra Costa Trial Lawyers Association, Capital City Trial Lawyers Association, Central Valley Trial Lawyers Association, Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, Consumer Attorneys of Inland Empire, and, the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association, and finally, the San Mateo County Trial Lawyers Association. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers in support? Any speakers in?

Madam chair, prior to this morning's hearing, unusual but not unprecedented opportunity if if the chair would allow for a support with the men's presentation from

From CJAC.

Come to the come to the table. Absolutely.

Oh, sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair. Good morning, chair and members. Annalie Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We are in a support if amended position. We sincerely thank chair Carlra for authoring the measure and the sponsors for their willingness to discuss this very important issue.

We all agree that third party litigation funding has been and continues to be an increasing problem. CJAC agrees that ensuring outside investors do not control or improperly influence litigation is imperative and have worked for years to advocate for increased transparency in this space. We believe strongly that amending the bill to add a third party funding disclosure requirement would strengthen the desired protections of this policy. We are very committed to working with the author and sponsors on amendments to advance our shared goals here.

Thank you again for this discussion and your willingness to address, these issues that surround lawsuit loan sharking.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any comments in opposition? Please come forward to the microphone or come to the table if you're the primary witness in opposition. Seeing none. Any speakers in opposition?

Seeing none. We'll come back to the table. Any questions? Mister Zbur, go ahead.

Great, bill. I'd love to be added as a coauthor. Thank you.

Yep. Sorry, miss Stefani.

Yes. Thank you, chair. Love this bill. Would love to be added as a coauthor as well.

Thank you.

I have a question on the right of action. Is that what you were trying to get at in terms of other enforcement mechanisms?

We're actually the desired amendments here would be disclosure and transparency around the third party funding. So we don't have comments at the as the added PRA at this time.

No. I wish we didn't have to have private right of action. Is that the only way we can afford I support the bill. Is there any other way to have an enforcement mechanism other than

I I I think it's the preferred way to ensure that there's meaningful enforcement.

Yeah. I see that. Alright. Well, we cannot vote. Yeah.

We're almost there, but thank you very much. Appreciate. We'll hold it, I guess.

Well, yeah.

You wanna make a closing comment?

Yeah. Thank you, madam chair. I just wanted to thank our sponsors for their work on this, not just this, but a number of measures in order to really focus on the integrity of the legal practice. I wanna thank CJAC for their not just cooperation, but support and continued work. I think that it's it's we all agree with the goal here, and I think there's some technical things we can do on on transparency that I'm confident we'll arrive at an agreement on.

And I wanna thank Assemblymember Zbur, who I know is also working on legislation in this space. I think it's very important that we have a a a civil legal system that we can really be confident in its integrity. And so I think that a number of these measures, go towards that aim. And at the appropriate time, I'd respect the ask for an aye vote.

And I agree with every word you just said.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Alright. Thank you all. Up next, we have item two ab 2115 Ramos. I believe the sum yeah. Something about Ramos.

Thank you. Whenever whenever you're situated and ready, sir.

Thank you so much, mister chair. Thank you so much, mister chair. And today, I'm presenting a b twenty one fifteen that represents an official apology from the state of California to California's first people, acknowledging the state's legislature's role in historic injustices and atrocities committed against the state's native communities and affirming its commitment to healing and reconciliation. The bill also serves as an apology from the state courts for their participation and failure to prevent the systematic discrimination and violence experienced by California's first people.

California joined the union in 1850, and the state legislature has yet to officially apologize for its own role in the early wars and massacres waged against California Native American people.

Between 1851 and 1859, the state racked up millions of dollars waging a war against tribes. These were taxpayers' dollars used to eliminate the California Indian people of their lands. Legislation was enacted to destroy tribal nations all throughout the state, wiping out entire communities and condemning generations to a future marked by profound pain and suffering.

In 1852, the legislature deliberately voted to oppose the ratification of 18 treaties negotiated between the United States government and California tribes, agreements that would have secured tribal homelands and guaranteed basic rights and protections to many native people. In 1860, the members of a select committee investigated the Mendocino wars called out for the outright takeover of tribal affairs by the state government and called for the enslavement of the remaining natives of the state by so called responsible citizens.

This history of violence against California's first people created deep and lasting trauma that continues to affect Native American communities across our state today. Although the governor issued an apology on behalf of the state in 2019, this body, this institution, which enacted laws that facilitated the removal and destruction of native communities has never issued its own apology for its direct role in these injustices. While we can never undo the wrongs of the past, the state has a responsibility to confront them with honesty.

That is why I introduced AB twenty one fifteen. This bill intends to be an acknowledgment of the harms that were committed and affirms the state's commitment to ensuring such injustices never occur again.

Mister chair members, I recognize that this legislature has made meaningful progress in addressing historic inequities. But without an official acknowledgment of wrongdoing and a formal apology from this body, we risk becoming complacent in silence that has persisted for more than a hundred and seventy years. That is why this bill will serve as a clear condemnation of the actions once taken by former members of the assembly and senate against California's first people.

It's also a commitment to building a better and a more just future for all native people who call the state home. California's home to the largest population of Native American and Alaska Native people in the nation.

Yet, we also rank among the highest in the number of uninvestigated or unresolved cases of missing and murdered indigenous people. However, this has been a direct consequence of generations of state sanctioned neglect and policies that marginalized native communities for years. Laws that have failed to protect native women and girls and ignored the violence that has disproportionately affected indigenous people across California. This is unacceptable. It is not justice, and we must do more to prevent violence and protect native lives.

AB 2115 acknowledges the legislative actions and failures that inflict profound pain and suffering on California's first people, while also honoring their survival and the resiliency of tribal communities. The bill further requests that a plaque commemorating this apology be created and installed at the state capitol, serving as a permanent reminder of this historic acknowledgment. Joining me today is chairman Kenneth Khan of the San Yanez Band of Chumash Indians to provide testimony on the importance of this apology. Thank you.

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Kenneth Khan, and I am the tribal chairman for the San Inez Band of Chumash Indians. I appear here today on behalf of my tribe in strong support of a b two one one five, authored by Assemblyman James Ramos. A b two one one five represents a necessary and overdue acknowledgment by the California legislature of its role in the historical mistreatment of California Native Americans.

Since California's admission to the union in 1850, the state enacted and enforced laws that enabled violence against tribal communities, stripped native people of basic civil protections, and made the survival of many tribes extraordinarily difficult.

For tribes like the Chumash, whose ancestral homeland spanned the Central Coast, these policies were not abstract or distant. They resulted in disposition dispossession from tribal traditional lands, the erosion of cultural practices, and generational trauma that continues to affect our people today. These harms were the direct result of state sanctioned policies adopted and maintained during California's early history. In 2019, governor Newsom took an important step by issuing an apology on behalf of the executive branch and establishing the Truth and Healing Council.

But as a b two one one five correctly recognize recognizes the violence and discrimination inflicted upon native communities, we're we're not confined to executive action alone.

The legislature itself promoted and permitted policies that caused profound and lasting harm. A b two one one five acknowledges the truth by issuing a formal legislative apology and memorializing it with a plaque in the state capital. This bill affirms responsibility, promotes healing, and signals that California is prepared to engage in honest, respectful government to government relationships with tribal nations. This acknowledgment is not only about the past, it lays the foundation for stronger partnerships today in areas like economic development, environmental stewardship, and cultural preservation.

The impacts of those policies are not confined to historic history books, but are reflected in the lived experiences of our elders and the challenges still faced by our communities.

At a time when California is working more closely than ever with tribal governments, it is both appropriate and necessary that the legislature formally recognizes its role in this history. For the Sandiness Band of Chumash Indians and for tribes across California, reconciliation must begin with acknowledgment, and it must be affirmed by all branches of government. We we respectfully urge a yes vote on ab 2115. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of ab 2115?

Thank you, chair members of the committee. Frank Molina on behalf of the Yohavitam band of San Manuel nation. Thank you and support.

Thank you. Chair members, Andrew Governor on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in support. Thank you.

Mister chair and members, Mike Belote on behalf of UC Law SF. We were proud to work with mister Ramos and the legislature to rename the school because of the very history that mister Ramos articulated.

Thank you.

Morning, mister chair members. Alex Alaniz on behalf of the Habomatol Pomo of Upper Lake. It's important.

Thank you.

Good morning. Cesar Gonzalez Garcia with the California Rural Indian Health Board, and we support this bill.

Thank you. At this time, well, is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2115? Okay. At this time, I'll ask if our secretary could please call the roll.

Kalra?

Here.

Besedo, Barakihan, Brian Connolly? Here. Dixon? Here. Harabedian?

Here. Pacheco? Here. Papan Sanchez?

Here.

Stephanie? Here. Zibur.

Quorum is established. Any questions? Assembly member Harabedian?

Thank you, mister chair. Thank you to the author. Please add me as a co author. Great to see you, mister Khan. Thank you for the testimony.

I think this bill is long overdue and appreciate you bringing it.

So I'll move the bill.

Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Stephanie?

Thank you. Yes. I too, want to acknowledge my support for this bill, and thank you, Assemblymember Ramos, for bringing it. I think that making amends, apologizing, learning from our behavior so as not to repeat it again is a path we should all be on, not only here, but, you know, in our personal lives. And this is an apology that is long overdue.

And what you've mentioned in terms of how Native American women or California indigenous people are missing at a rate that is higher than most is an absolute it's something that we have to address and be thinking about every day. And I thank you for bringing that up again today, and I would like to like to be added as the co author. So thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Dixon?

Thank you so much, mister chair. I joined the course of supporters and appreciate what you're doing, Assemblymember, to bring righteous justice to our our first Californians and Native Americans. I am support of the bill, of course. A couple questions. Just more curiously, the plaque, $500,000, is this, like, a a going to be a plaque on a wall, or do you envision something more major?

I just wanna see this get through, and I don't know if it will through appropriations. I just wanna make sure. I don't know what you envisioned, number one. And then, curiously, number two, I think this is important for the state of California to do it. You cite the reasons, and, certainly, California in those early years is not the only state that had these issues with our first Americans.

Are other states doing this? Have they done it? Are we late? Are we early? Just more commentary on the rest of the country.

Through the chair. Thank you for the the questions, comments. As far as, you know, talking about other states, I'm not so sure. But I do know that here in the state of California, it's long and overdue. Getting to the plat component, we did move a bill early on in in my legislature in the tenure here for the monument on the park, and we kept all options open.

So those are things that would be discussed within the approach. Okay.

Alright. Thank you very much. And please add my name also. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Pacheco.

Thank you. And I also wanna thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. It is long overdue, and I would love to be added as a coauthor.

Thank you so much.

Assemblymember Connolly?

Please add me as well.

Any other questions or comments? I wanna first just thank the author, not just for this legislation, but for his fierce and advocacy on behalf of the Native American community throughout your tenure, even before that, before you arrived here in Sacramento. It's it's, truly commendable.

And, you know, I I really appreciate the fact because, again, we're certainly grateful to the governor, for for his apology, but I think it's correctly stated the legislature played an equal, if not greater than equal role in the actual actions and atrocities of the state. And we are the legislature, and we cannot turn a blind eye to that.

And I'll just you know, I know I've mentioned this before, and I just wanna mention it publicly publicly again because, you know, we had a school in San Jose Middle School. We changed from Peter Burnett to Ohlone, to Muwekma Ohlone Middle School. And, you know, it kinda burns me every time I see that picture that that paint painting or portrait downstairs without context. But, you know, I think that we have to be more than a glorified museum if we're gonna be putting up paintings of people.

And if we're not gonna take them down, at least offer context.

So as to who they were and and what damage they caused. And so I'll just put that out there. I don't wanna platform that guy too much today because this is actually a very important, important action that you're asking us to take that should be celebrated. And I would also like to be added as a co author. Would you like to close her?

Thank you, mister chair. And certainly, this brings up a lot of the issues that the legislature has been dealing with around Native American issues, missing and murdered indigenous women, suicide prevention, mental health components. But to have an official apology from the state of California that use taxpayers dollars to hunt and kill our people is a step in the right direction. It doesn't solve or heal everything, but it's a step in the right direction.

And it's time that the legislature in the state of California move forward with that apology.

I ask for your aye vote.

Motions do pass to appropriations. Cara?

Thank you.

Cara, I. Masito, Eric Cahillan, Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, I. Dixon?

Aye.

Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Aye. Haribbean, aye.

Pacheco?

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Pepin Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie Ziburgh.

Okay. So we'll place that on call. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Alright. We we have I'd I think we have miss Patel. Assemblymember Patel, AB 2179 which is item four. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Thank you, mister chair and colleagues. I am here to present a b twenty one seventy nine, which expands e filing of restraining orders to include workplaces sorry, workplace violence restraining orders also known as WVROs. We have seen with e filings and remote appearances that as detailed in your analysis, submitting paperwork in person for an application can be inconvenient when they are facing pressing needs related to their restraining order.

Bills such as AB twenty nine sixty in 2022 with gun violence and domestic violence restraining orders and AB five sixty one in 2025 with elder dependent adult protection orders have increased access and provided certainty to individuals that are facing some of the most difficult and stressful times of their lives.

AB 2179 seeks to allow for that certainty for individuals facing workplace violence. With me is, Sharon Gonsalves who is testifying on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, one of our cosponsors for this measure. Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And good morning, mister chair and members of the committee. Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the city of Carlsbad. We're pleased to cosponsor this bill along with the San Diego County District Attorney and, wanna thank Assemblymember Patel for carrying this measure. AB two two one seven nine, would make workplace violence restraining order procedures match other civil restraining order types by requiring courts to accept electronic filings of petitions and related filings, as well as allow parties and witnesses to appear remotely at the hearing.

As the committee analysis states, beginning in January 2027, most restraining order types including domestic violence, elder and dependent abuse, general civil harassment, restraining orders will all allow for electronic filings and remote appearances.

Workplace violence restraining orders were not included in the previous previous authorizing legislation, and 2179 will close that gap. Ab 2179 it's a common sense, narrowly tailored fix to ensure workplace violence restraining orders are as accessible, efficient, and safe as other protective orders, and I would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2179?

Saudia Khan, Family Violence Law Center in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Megan Loper on behalf of the California Hospital Association in support.

Thank you.

Pat Espinosa on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office in strong support and also appearing for the California District Attorney's Association as well. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Engineers and Scientists of California Unite Here, Utility Workers Union of America, and I believe I'm forgetting one. I apologize to whoever that is, but also in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2179? We'll bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Zabir.

So first of all, I wanna thank the author. I think it's a great bill. It reminds me of meetings that I had with some of the members of Unite here in my district where they recounted stories about workplace violence that they were encountering. And so I think those were really heartbreaking stories that I heard. This was, you know, when I was running a couple years ago, and so this is a really important bill and just want would love to be added as a coauthor.

Yes. Of course.

Assemblymember Pacheco?

I would also love to be added as a coauthor, and I'll make a motion. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? I also wanna thank the the author for bringing this bill forward in addition to some of the comments made regarding Unite here. Our ATU and transit workers went through a really tough time at at VTA when there was a shooting there. And it's all too common.

I think not just gun violence, but in general, you know, it could be stalking. It could be a lot of different scenarios at the workplace, which, you know, other the one you're at home is the place you're at the most, and and people should certainly be able to feel safe there. So I think there's an important bill, and I appreciate you bringing forward. I'd also like to be added as coauthor. Yes.

Of course.

Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, members, and respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Motions do pass to appropriations. Kalra?

Aye.

Kalra, I. Masito, Bauer Kehan, Brian Connolly? Aye. Connolly, I. Dixon, I.

Hairabedian. Aye. Hairabedian, aye. Pacheco.

Aye.

Pacheco, I. Papan Sanchez.

Aye.

Sanchez, aye. Stephanie Sabur. Aye. Sabur, aye.

Alright. That goes out. Thank you. Thank you. Alright.

Up next item six, ab 2323 assembly member McKinner.

We

just

Thank you.

Oops. Takes a minute.

Take your time. Whenever you're ready, a Sunday member.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Morning.

Mister chair and members, a b twenty three twenty three seeks to modernize California's public notice system while preserving its role as a cornerstone of government transparency and due process. For decades, California has required legal notices to be published in independent newspapers of general circulation, creating a verified third party record that ensures the public has reliable access to information about government actions, public hearings, and decisions that impact their communities.

As more Californias turn to digital platforms for information, our public notice system must evolve, but it must do so without compromising access equity or legal integrity. AB twenty three twenty three responds to this need by maintaining print publication as the legal standard while also expanding access by requiring notice to be available online. This approach ensures that notices remain independently verified and legally sound while also becoming more visible and accessible to the public.

Additionally, public notice publication support smaller and culturally significant newspapers, including many that serve communities of color, which rely on these revenues to remain operational and to provide trusted information to their communities. AB twenty three twenty three builds on this existing framework by allowing newspapers to expand their digital presence without replacing or undermining the independent role they play in ensuring accountability. As this bill moves forward, I remain committed to working with stakeholders to ensure that implementation continues to preserve equitable access across all communities.

This bill is about striking the right balance between modernization and accountability while protecting the public's right to know. Today's witness is none other than former Assemblywoman, Sheryl Brown and Paul School Messenger Publishing Group.

Thank you.

Thank you, please.

Thank you so it's my clan. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair. Maura. It's so good to see you again and chairman, Maceo in her absence.

Members of the committee. It's a privilege to be with you today to support twenty three, twenty three, a B, twenty three, twenty three as a former newspaper publisher owner, journalist, former member of this body, as a matter of fact, in this room, many times and former chair of the commission on aging, I bring both professional and personal experience to this issue. I believe this bill strikes the right balance.

It builds on the existing framework that supports due process while modernizing access in a thoughtful way without leaving behind the millions of seniors who still rely on print for their news and their information in their communities. For many years, I published the newspaper that serves San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.

It is and remains today a newspaper of general circulation that published notices for residents in Riverside County. I understand firsthand the importance of ensuring that communities are informed about government actions that that impact their daily lives. Now in retirement, I rely on multiple ways to stay informed, whether it's the daily newspaper delivered to my home or black newspapers that I pick up each work at each week at my church. These are not just sources of information. They are trusted connections to what's happening in my community.

While digital access is increasingly important, I've learned that the best solutions are those that work across generations. This bill does that. It preserves the role of local newspapers in holding government accountable and informing residents while also expanding access by making notices available on their websites. Ab 2323 does that. It does not repay replace what works.

It strengthens it. Thank you for your time. And I respectfully ask for your eye vote, and I thank our author for this information and for this bill.

Thank you.

Sorry.

That's big. Yeah. Move you can move it up close.

Hello, and good morning. My name is Paul Scholl. I'm the owner of Messenger Publishing Group where we publish 11 adjudicated newspapers across six Northern California counties in the Sacramento region along with 10 additional independent community publications that we print at my printing company. I'm also a member of California Independent News Alliance. I'll get straight to the point.

I support AB 2,323 because it strikes the right balance. This bill strengthens transparency in government by ensuring public notices remain entrusted, verified newspapers, while also expanding access by allowing those notices to be posted online. This means more people, especially in the communities that we serve, can actually see and engage with this information. For publishers like me, this is about meeting people where they are today without losing the integrity and accountability that newspapers of record provide the public.

AB2323 is a practical, forward looking approach that respects both tradition and innovation.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here, in support of AB 2323?

Thank you, mister chair and members. Vanessa Cajina on behalf of the California News Publishers Association with the support of amended position. Our concerns are outlined in the letter. Having a repository does increase access, but we really appreciate the work of the author and the sponsors on where we are. Look forward to continuing this conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Regina Brown Wilson, executive director of California Black Media, and we are in support. I also just got a letter from the Latino Media Collaborative. They are also in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2323?

Good morning. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association. We are respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Right. Well, bring it back to me. I I just wanna start by thanking and welcoming Assemblymember Brown. Great to have you back here, and thank you for continued advocacy on behalf of your community.

Assemblymember Dixon.

I'd like to make a motion of support.

And I'd like to be a coauthor. And I do support that amendment. I appreciate that working forward. As you say, sir, to meet where everybody is, but I think because of the data repository opportunity, it just allows everybody to have a history and archival purposes. So I hope we can work that out, but thank you so much for making another attempt to keep newspapers alive online or in print.

I'm still reading it in print, but I do read online as well. We have to have both. So thank you very much for doing the mailing for support.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. A motion and a second. Any other questions or comments?

Well, I wanna thank the author in in the fact that he has support if amended from the publisher's great sign of movement and have conversation, from the author, who who I know has been engaging, with our staff, here, the committee staff, as well as with opposition. So I think the the legislation is in a good place, and I I I look forward to to seeing continued work on it. Would you like to close?

Yes. AB 2323 is really needed because as we look at what's happening online on on the Internet, on on our social media, we can't believe everything we see. And so it's it's tremendously important that we keep print print news because it's factual. That's where our people our people can go, and we can get the facts. And so I think this bill is very important.

I do agree. We'll continue to work with with the stakeholders. I am also looking at the suppository. Is that what it's called? Repository.

Repository. I probably said the wrong word. Repository. Excuse me. Repository.

That's for the Health Committee, I think.

You know, I'm just

I'm looking at the repository. Well, we need to laugh this morning.

That's good.

Because and and as I look at it, you know, there are certain organizations that can hold this, and and I would be looking at at at the California Black Media. So thank you. Thank you so much. And I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Motions to pass. Kalra?

Kalra, aye. Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly?

Aye.

Aye.

Dixon, aye. Harabedian?

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Aye.

Haribedian, aye. Pacheco?

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Papan Sanchez?

Aye.

Aye.

Sanchez, aye. Stefani, Zbur?

Aye.

Zbur, aye.

Thank you.

Hey. That bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And for and just for the record, item AB 2109 Assemblymembers' Dixon's bill was pulled from consent. So we will be hearing it at some point this morning. We haven't we have we don't have any authors. We'll just go in order of committee members. I, is Assemblymember Zbur, are you prepared to present on AB2039?

And and while we're doing that, do we have a motion on the consent calendar?

Yeah. Move the consent calendar.

Oh, yeah. There you go. And then

Motion. A second. So yeah. Consent calendar. On the consent calendar, please.

Consent includes AB 1689 Quirk Silva to human services, AB 2199 Macedo to the floor, AB 2283 Jeff Gonzales as amended to appropriations, AB2290 Lackey to the floor, AB2335 Valencia as amended to banking and finance, and AB 2542 Patterson two appropriations. Kalra?

Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo. Bauer-Kahan. Bryan. Connolly. Aye.

Connolly, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Hairabedian, aye. Pacheco. Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Papan. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stefani. Zburr. Aye. Zburr, aye.

Okay. That bill is out and we'll go ahead, with item one, AB 2039. Assembly member when Assembly member, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, mister chair, members. I'm proud to present AB 2039, which will close loopholes in existing law that bad attorneys exploit, protect victims, and preserve the integrity of the the justice system. I wanna thank the sponsors, Consumer Attorneys of California, for their work this year focusing on assuring the integrity in our legal system and our legal profession. Access to justice depends on public trust in the legal profession.

When attorneys exploit vulnerable people, paying runners to file fraudulent claims, lending money to clients in ways that create hidden conflicts, they don't just break the law.

They undermine the credibility of every attorney fighting for injured Californians who have nowhere else to turn. And when bad actors erode trust in the system, real people lose access to justice and accountability. Recent reporting by the Los Angeles Times highlighted a wave of inappropriate attorney conduct, including allegations that attorneys paid recruiters to find clients and paid individuals to fabricate claims and become their clients.

Unethical conduct results in claims being brought that are false or fraudulent, which not only undermines our justice system, but it also denies real victims their day in court by wasting the time and resources that should go to real cases. AB 2039 closes three specific enforcement gaps that allow misconduct to go undisciplined.

First, the bill requires mandatory summary disbarment when attorneys are convicted of felony capping or illegally soliciting clients and misdemeanor convictions involving knowing financial gain. Second, this bill prohibits termination, harassment, blacklisting, or other retaliation against people inside firms who report misconduct. And finally, this bill requires clear separate attorney client loan agreements with no hidden fees or interest, an informed consent process, and a cool down period before signing.

Together, these reforms will help ensure that attorneys are held accountable for misconduct and will reduce the number of fraudulent cases that take up time and resources in California's courts. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

And with me today is Casey Johnson, president-elect of the Consumer Attorneys of California, who's the sponsor of the bill.

And and, assemblymember you do accept the committee amendments?

I do accept the committee amendments.

Thank you. Thank you.

Please. Good morning, mister chair and members. Casey Johnson, president-elect of the consumer attorneys of California. I'm also a partner at the law firm of Aiken, Aiken and Cohn in Orange County, California, and here in strong support of AB 2039. This bill is about protecting consumers and restoring trust in our legal system.

Right now, California already has laws against serious attorney misconduct, like illegal client solicitation known as capping and unethical financial arrangements with clients. But the reality is these laws are not being enforced consistently. As a result, bad actors can exploit vulnerable clients, people who are often dealing with injuries, financial hardship, or crises, and face uneven consequences. We've also seen the people who try to report misconduct, risk retaliation, including losing their jobs or being pushed out of the profession. That creates a culture where wrongdoing can continue unchecked.

AB 2039 addresses these gaps with three reforms. First, it creates clear mandatory consequences for illegal client solicitation schemes. If an attorney is convicted of this misconduct, they will be disbarred. No loopholes, no inconsistent discipline. Second, it protects whistleblower so employees, colleagues, and others can report misconduct without fear of retaliation.

And third, it prevents financial exploitation by banning attorneys from charging interest or hidden fees on loans or advances to their own clients, ensuring these arrangements don't erode a client's recovery. Together, these reforms strengthen accountability, ensure that laws applied fairly and consistently. This bill is about making sure legal decisions are based on what's best for the client, not financial incentives or unethical practices. It protects vulnerable Californians and supports the many ethical attorneys who already follow the rules.

AB twenty thirty nine strengthens consumer protections and upholds the integrity of our legal system.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2039?

Mister chair and members, Mike Belote speaking on behalf of the California Defense Counsel in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Jackie Stern on behalf of the Capital City Trial Lawyers Association, the Alameda-Contra Costa Trial Lawyers Association, the Central Valley Trial Lawyers Association, the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association, and the San Mateo County Trial Lawyers Association.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah. Feel free to come. Yeah.

Good morning, chair caller and members. Anna Lee Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We appreciate assembly member Zbur very much for authoring this measure and sponsors for the discussion. We are in a support if amended position. Again, here as we support efforts to enhance accountability in the legal system.

However, we have some concerns about the effectiveness of enforcement dependent on actions by the state bar. So we would support amendments that would add independent oversight of the state bar's disciplinary system and clear timelines and thresholds for complaint investigations.

Also, we think that further safeguards could help strengthen the bill. We're very committed to working with author and sponsors and appropriate stakeholders when appropriate. And thank you so much for this discussion.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2039? We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments?

Motion for approval.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

And a second. Any other questions or comments?

Second.

I I wanna commend the author. As I mentioned, when I when I presented my bill, you know, the the there's a lot of work being done in this space appropriately so. These are incredibly meaningful measures. I I really appreciate the whistleblower protection. I think that protecting employees and it could just like any other workplace could be pretty intimidating to step up if it's a partner or what have you.

You know, we wanna make sure those protections are codified and and meaningful. And I appreciate the sponsors for taking these issues so seriously and offering a number of measures over the last couple years. Again, to increase accountability and integrity in the legal system. And I think CJAC coming forward.

I think that there's sometimes there's there's agreement or disagreement on different issues, but it's very good to see that there's a general consensus and agreement that all of us need need to see what we could do more and better in terms of accountability in our civil justice system.

And so I think this this bill is is really important. But I'd like to be added as a coauthor. And Can you just make Oh, yeah. Of course. Someone will extend that.

Thank you, mister chair. I strongly support this bill. I'd like to be added as a coauthor. The comment from CJAC, I hope you're working together with them because I think that enforcement and transparency and outside, oversight, I think, will be helpful. So thank you very much.

Good bill.

Thank you. And and I know our assembly member Dixon, just like all of us, also have a lot of thoughts about the state bar. And so we'll certainly continue to work with the state bar to make sure that there's meaningful oversight and if necessary, take action where we feel necessary. Would you like to close?

No. I appreciate the comments from CJAC. Obviously, their comments raise broader issues with respect to the state bar that, you know, have effects on more than just this bill. So, obviously, we will continue working with them. I wanna thank, the consumer attorneys, of California again for, being proactive in, in a number of bills, including yours, mister chair, to really assure integrity in our legal profession.

It's really is and in our system. It's really and people having confidence in it. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Motions do passes amended. Kalra?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly?

Aye.

Dixon, aye. Harabedian.

Harabedian, aye. Pacheco?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Papan, Sanchez?

Sanchez, aye. Stefani, Zbur?

Aye.

Zbur, aye.

That's all. Alright. That goes out. Thank you. We have three more bills remaining.

I have a bill and some member Dixon has a bill as well assemblymember member Bennett. So I'll ask some member Dixon if she'd like to present item 9 AB 2109.

Alright. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you. Before I begin, can you hear me okay?

Before I begin, I want to thank the committee for their diligent work and with my office on this Bill, especially for their open communication and expertise. AB 2109 is a simple piece of legislation to require the California State Bar to adopt the National Conference of Bar Examiners universal bar exam or any successor or replacement to that exam that is currently in process. This legislation has stemmed from the well known disastrous administration of the February 2025 bar exam.

Yes.

In 2024, California rejected the adoption of the National Conference of Bar Examiners multistate bar exam in favor of developing its own exam alongside Kaplan North America. The primary reason for this choice was the ability to administer a hybrid exam and cut costs to the state bar.

The development of the exam was then fast tracked alongside Kaplan, ultimately culminating in the debacle that was the February 2025 exam. As many of us on this committee know, the February 2025 exam was an unmitigated disaster. Test takers faced numerous issues, including constant computer crashes, inability to connect to the online testing platform, inability to save essays, poorly worded AI questions, screen lags, consistent error messages, and more.

As a result of these issues, the state bar spent 2025 preparing retake exams and new in person testing locations for affected students in addition to scoring changes that allowed test takers to pass with lower scores. There is also an ongoing lawsuit against Measure Learning who helped administer the online exam.

It has been learned through discovery that Measure itself questioned its ability to successfully roll out the online exam, but still move forward without warning the state bar. As a final point of concern, we have learned that 23 of the 171 multiple choice questions on the exam were developed by generative AI with no clear input or proofreading or acknowledgment by licensed attorneys. An additional 48 questions were reused from the first year law students exam often called the baby bar.

These facts represent an exam that fell well short of the high standards of the California State Bar. To ensure a situation such as this never happens again and to protect the public, AB 2109 will require California to adopt the universal bar exam or its successor exam.

In doing so, California will join 41 other states in adopting the universal bar exam, which is a proven, stable, and trusted examination used by attorneys around the nation. Our office has been in active discussions with the committee surrounding the constitutionality of this legislation. While we have not had any outreach from the California State Bar or the Supreme Court of California, we certainly most welcome the opportunity to work with them and discuss the legislation further.

In fact, as we know, the chief justice referenced this matter in her address to the legislature yesterday. Regardless, the California State Bar has failed to act, and its cost and its cost and it's cost both students and the state dearly.

It is time to step in and ensure a stable and quality testing experience while maintaining the high standards of California attorneys. I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2109? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2109? We'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Assemblymember Zbur.

So thank you. I I'm the one that pulled this, not because I don't plan on supporting the bill today. I just am hopeful that we have some input from judicial counsel, other experts on sort of what went wrong. My sense is that there was more wrong than actually just the the test. So I appreciate your focusing on this issue.

Obviously, you know, what happened in the last administration of the bar exam was disastrous as our chief justice pointed out in the address yesterday. But I do think that we need to actually have some, engagement with the state bar, the judicial council, and others, in terms of how, you know, sort of a comprehensive way of addressing some of the problems that arose, but do intend to support the Bill today.

Thank you. Mister Zbur, yes. We would I think we all would want to make sure we're all on the same page and work through the process and be constructive in that, and I would support that strongly.

Thank you. And do we have a motion and a second?

I'll move it. Okay.

Alright. And thank you, Assemblymember, for raising those issues. And, look, you know, the the the bar exam implementation last year was an unmitigated disaster on a number of fronts. So to to mister Zbur's point, it's not simply, the the test itself. However, I do think there's a real this bill really, provides for an incredibly important conversation and agreed, and I know you will, have a continued outreach to judicial council and to to the state bar to get their input.

And, you know, I do like the idea, and I I used to kinda see it as a badge of honors. Like, well, you take the California bar, like, you know, it's a special bar, and you can't go practice anywhere else. But I've I've come to warm up the idea of reciprocity. It might be a good thing for folks that that take the bar in California. And and we know when I took it, it was three days.

I don't know what it is now, but, you know, it was snowing all three days too. I had to get through a blizzard to get to the bar. So, you know, now, you know, nowadays, I'm I'm I'm open to other ideas. And so I think this is a really good Bill to spur a really important conversation. I know you've been really focusing in ever since last year on on the bar, and I appreciate you for doing that.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

I thank you. Appreciate your comments, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Motions do pass the floor. Kalra. Aye.

Kalra, aye. Macedo. Bauer-Kahan. Bryan. Aye.

Bryan, aye. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian.

Aye. Harabedian, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye.

Papan. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stefani. Zbur. Aye. Zbur, aye.

Okay. That bill is out. And we have with us Assemblymember Bennett, AB 2125. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, mister chair and members. I'd like to begin by accepting the amendments on page five of the committee analysis. There you go, gentlemen. Let's thank you.

So I accept the amendments that are on page five of the committee analysis. I also wanna thank the committee staff for their work with my office on this. This is a fairly narrow technical change in the notification process. What basically has happened is adjudications are starting to increase dramatically with GSA's coming up with their their water plans. We have some people that feel like they were not ever notified about the case at all.

And as a result, they lost their water rights because they did not respond. And this is, I think, a common sense adjustment to the process to say that when the notifications are mailed out and the receipts come back, we should provide with the judge with that information in terms of how many people were received. Sometimes it might be 15 people. Right? But if it's a thousand people and you receive receipts back from 900 of them, the judge might say, hey.

How certain are we that the other 100 know that there's even this case? So this gives the judge the authority to take greater measures if in the judge's opinion that needs to be taken.

But losing your water rights without ever knowing, and I can sit here and I'd be happy to give you some real examples of abuses, that I believe took place where notifications were signed by the same signature over and over again to to multiple different people, Other things that just if a judge would have seen this in advance, it may have been able to to take a different position.

So with that, we have some representatives here also, and I was not aware that I had representatives coming here. So

Well, let's let's hear from them. Yeah. Okay. Well, whenever we go ahead, sir.

But I'm gonna find out who they are also. We were told we weren't sure whether anybody was coming.

Well, people people are very excited about the opportunity to to speak on your bill.

That's right. There you go.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Daryl Smith. I'm a local farmer in Ventura County, and I'm also here to represent some of the people that couldn't make it, who did not receive proper notification. I'm involved in the Las Posas adjudication over water. And I, like several other people without proper notice, lost my right to pump my water.

I've been a farmer and pumping water for 37 years, and now I no longer have the opportunity to have allocations to pump. There was no formal notice or certified letter sent to me, and therefore, I was not aware that the adjudications would take away my water rights. And as a result, I feel that there was without proper participation. I was denied due process, which is, I believe, is a fundamental right of all of our citizens in this country.

There's some talk about the fact that it was cost prohibitive to notify thousands of people.

Well, the majority of those people are in homes, condominiums, and they're served by municipalities that are notified. So the need to notify everybody, there's a more effective way, I'm sure, to do that. The actual people that should have been notified were pumpers, which only numbers in a few 100 in Ventura County. And those people deserve proper notification, certified mail, served in person because water is our livelihood. Without it, we don't exist anymore.

We can't tend to our crops. We can't exist as farmers. These are people that deserve direct notification. So I ask you, please, and aye vote for AB 2125 so we can clear up the fact of any fog that exists in notification. And there is proof by return receipt and therefore could be verified for the courts and not left to some arbitrary decision made by a judge who may or may not be properly informed. I thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

I don't wanna get too close to Daryl. I'm also a farmer in Ventura County. My name is Doug Holmesy, and we farm lemons, avocados. And, my wife and I do all the farming, and by doing it all, I mean that we actually do all the work. She even got her own chainsaw just recently because we had so many ukes go down that I couldn't keep up with them.

It's electric, by the way. So it's pretty slick. We we also were not notified. In fact, we found out we have to this date, I've not been notified that we lost our allocation by anyone. We found out about it through a a roundabout way from a neighbor of ours that sent a letter out saying, hey.

Do you know that that adjudication is over and you lost? And that that's a travesty. I think it's a it's something that can't can't happen. You know, it's these adjudications are gonna continue throughout the state, and they're gonna use this adjudication of Ventura County as a model. And we need to we need to fix what was wrong, and we also need to clarify the law so that people can't can't use this law to to take other waters.

Because this adjudication ended up, at the risk of bad mouthing more lawyers. You know, we they are the ones that are profiting from this. Millions of I believe the adjudication in in our in our area, was 20 to $40,000,000 was spent on the adjudication, and not one drop of water was created. Not one drop of water was brought in. You know, it was just divided up, and I'm in favor of dividing the water up.

I think SGMA is a good a good law. I think it the danger of over pumping is there. But in Ventura County, it's not as severe where we are as it is in other areas of the county. And I think it was you know, we were taken advantage of as a first, and I I would like to see this this passed. I really appreciate mister Bennett, authoring this bill, and I I urge you to vote aye. Thank you.

Thank thank you very much. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2125?

Yes. Good morning. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We don't yet have a position, but certainly support the intent of the bill of improving noticing in these complex adjudications and better documenting that with the court. Really appreciate the work of the author, his staff, the committee consultant with the amendments.

We're just we're reviewing those amendments, and we'll certainly be in touch with the author going forward.

Thank you.

I'm sure the chamber supports our small family farmers' right of rights. That's oh, yes.

Hi. I'm his wife. I'm a chainsaw lady. So you're doing all

the work with the the electric chainsaw. How's that working?

It's great because I can't pull that. Oh. You know? You start and you stop. You start and you stop, and you gotta do it.

The only thing is is the battery only lasts about forty minutes.

Well, then you get a break after forty minutes.

Well, I have two batteries. So I go one 40 put it in the charger. The charger takes about an hour. So you you know? But I get the other forty, and then I take a break, twenty minute break, and then I have another battery. So

Good.

But this is this is devastating to us to lose our water. Absolutely devastating. We don't sleep at night. We bought the family farm for these folks.

That we just wanna continue to farm.

Well, I I wanna thank you, all three of you, for taking the time, to come up here to Sacramento. And, you know, oftentimes, we get caught up in our world up here, and it's always refreshing to hear from real people, that that are being affected by about what's happening on the ground with our legal system. And so I wanna thank the author for recognizing that and recognizing that we need to do better when when it comes to ensuring especially when it comes to water rights.

I mean, I think that's something that always is so needs needs to have transparency when any of that when that's in jeopardy. And and I know that there was some mention of what cost would be to mail out, you know, but at the end of the day, it is a balancing act of the cost notice versus losing your water rights.

And I think that we're weighing those two. I think it's it's a no brainer. Plus, it gives the judge discretion so that as mentioned that there's if if, you know, it's it's your jurisdiction where it's just a bunch of condos, the judge could make a judgment call. Okay. Well, they're already being served by water.

They don't you know, they they judge it gives the judge the ability to make that judgment call, being cognizant of the cost of doing it while making sure that that folks that actually would have an impact are getting, you know, registered notice, before any action is taken. Assemblymember Dixon?

Thank you. Mister chair, just to clarify, I support the bill strongly. Couple thing points I wanna questions I wanna ask. So I was getting that certified letter, but was there any kind of public process when they were going through which where the water was going to be allocated? Did you even know about just the process?

I knew there was a lawsuit, but I didn't know it was directed towards us. I thought it was directed towards Fox Canyon Groundwater Management in order to regulate water. As mister Holmes Holmesy has pointed out, SGMA was designed to protect the aquifer, and we all knew that. And I thought that Fox Canyon was the one in charge. I didn't know, and, no, I did not receive a certified letter.

And as a matter of fact, through discovery, through our learning our lawyers, which was quite expensive, it was pointed out that my letter was dropped in the mailbox, not knowing who did it, why, or when it happened. And years later, I find out by attending the meeting, you don't have your allocations anymore. They no longer exist. And so now, in order to preserve my crop, I continue to pump, I continue to protect my crop.

And if this goes through and we lose our allocations, I face civil penalties that will actually wipe me out.

So you still have your water. Both of you still have your water.

My well is still working.

The well is still working.

But If it's not allocated, then there's no water.

I have no allocations, but I still stay in compliance. In other words, I notified the GMA of my extractions. I pay the fees that that are required. So I try to stay in compliance. But as I point out, without the opportunity for due process

You don't know what you don't know.

I don't know what I don't know.

And we are subject to civil penalties that I as I say, if if this is resolved against us, I'll probably owe predatory amount of probably a million dollars or more.

Okay. Thank you for this. I so going to through this well, let me commend my colleague, mister Bennett. You went to your legislator, and here we are. So he listens to to the needs of his constituents.

But if there and I support amending the state law, but if there was no other path forward to save this through the the process of, I mean, testifying at the meetings or the lawsuit or anything like that. I just it's a shame we had to go through all of this to go through this process.

If if I could answer that the by the time that I was notified by my neighbor that this had occurred informally, we contacted we tried to contact attorneys. You couldn't find one in Ventura that didn't already have a conflict of interest with somebody else in Ventura. We went to an attorney at at first, and by the time we were notified, we were beyond the point of appeal to the court directly. The forty eight hours, sixty or sixty day, whatever it was.

We were we were beyond that.

It was almost six months after the judgment had been rendered. And so we we pursued it. We have gone to court. We've spent a million and a half dollars, I believe, you know, a group of us. A dozen or 20 of us, I think it is.

Yes.

And, we went to the same judge as did the original adjudication. He didn't pay the attention to the the case at all. He had decided. He let the opposing lawyers write his decision for him and had it presented that the day that we we're supposed to testify.

So it was over.

Well, I'm glad that

We're in the appeal now.

Your assembly representative is taking this, we'll amend state law. No one will go through this process again. It's it's really regrettable, but I'm I'm sorry to hear that. I mean, a lot of lawsuits are how does anyone pay attention to all those kinds of things unless you're a party to the lawsuit? But anyway, thank you for bringing it to all of us, and I'm glad we can be supportive.

Do you have motions? I'll make the motion.

Assembly member Bryan.

Yeah. I'd like to second that motion. I made two pretty strong commitments when I first got to the legislature. One was to never go against assemblymember Bennett fighting for water rights. And the second was to never make angry a righteous woman with a chainsaw.

And you've brought both today.

And so you have my support, and I just wanna thank you and you guys for coming up and telling us what's going on.

Thank you. Assemblymember Zbur.

First of all, thank you so much. I I think it's really important what you're doing to try to make sure that people who have the risk of losing rights that are important for their business and their livelihood as a family have the ability to get notice before these allocations take place. I, you know, water law is an arcane area, which is one I don't really understand very much. I used to avoid that when I was a practicing lawyer and hand that off to other people.

In cases like this where there were it looks like there were just gross lack of notice, what what's the impediments to actually reopening up the adjudication?

I mean, why was that is that something that, that you could consider adding to the bill in addition to the increases in the notice?

I I I appreciate the question. I would like this bill to be much stronger. I I think that there is a a real problem with judges that have been doing this for long periods of time. They're the ones who get all the water cases. They have the relationships with the powerful attorneys and the powerful law firms that are out there, and they are very reluctant to take the positions of mister Smith and mister Holmesy into consideration.

And so it was like a problem. I I think that the judge in this lawsuit was wrong in so many so many aspects in terms of the ruling. But it was, if if you don't mind, I'll digress just really quickly. The old way that water adjudication used to be settled.

Water adjudications used to be lots of private parties, maybe a couple of cities would be involved, and they're trying to decide, you know, how we're gonna the the water that comes from this river or the water that comes from this basin, how we're going to divide it up.

Everybody was fighting. Usually, they were fighting with each other. And if the judge could get out of 10 people, if the judge could get seven or eight of them to agree, the judge would go, wow. That's great. That's gonna be the way I'm going to go.

Now what we've had changed in California is we have one GSA who sits there and tries to come up with the right allocation, gets sued by everybody who doesn't like that allocation process. So they're already a big cohesive group of people. So you have one GSA in opposition to maybe 15 or 20 powerful landowners. So they go to the judge who's used to saying, hey, as soon as I can get most of the people on board, well, the one GSA represents all the small people. Right?

And the 15 or 20 all have the same interest, which is overturning the GSA ruling. So they all go, judge, we've got a solution where 15 out of 16 of us agree. And the judge goes, that sounds pretty good to me because that's how the judge has always done it. It was the wrong adjudication. And but once it started down that road, then when they came and said, look, here's here's evidence that we have the same signature on 10 different things.

You know, actual fraud judge goes, hey. That's not my that's not my job. So, I wish it would be stronger. And if if if if if the indulgence of the chair, I'm gonna say something, which is I was gonna say in my close, but it's it feels more appropriate to say right now. We've had a a a few moments of of, humor here with me not knowing who was coming and and the chainsaw, etcetera.

But we also had a very appropriate moment of how serious this is. And we have opposition pushing when we said there ought to be even stronger. Right now, we're saying, hey, the judge has the discretion to do this. They're saying, hey, mailing a $10 you know, to do a $10 mailing to each person is just too much. That's what the opposition has said, which is why we've taken the and what we did.

But but after hearing this today, I want to acknowledge to the chair and to the committee staff and to the opposition that's out there that we've negotiated with that I will probably be seeking something stronger than this as this bill moves forward. Because I think that losing your water right because somebody didn't wanna pay $10 to mail you notification.

And mister Smith gave me, I think, the trigger for that, which is maybe we set something up where you don't mail to every condo owner who's represented by the city. But if you're a water pumper, right, and you have a farm and you're going to lose your allocation, that should require more than just the, you know, hope you got the notification and, a judge having the possibility of saying, hey. We didn't get any receipt from this person.

So I will probably be trying to do that with the indulgence of the chair. Right.

Yeah. I was gonna say, you know, this is about notice and about making sure that everyone gets notice. And one of the concerns you had about that, and I don't know that it's clear I was trying to read and understand how this works in the bill, but is that if you can't get notice, a re signed receipt from every person doesn't sort of hold up the adjudication.

And obviously, you want a resigned receipt, but there's probably gonna be in some adjudications some number of people that you don't get a receipt from. And I'm just wondering if there could be stronger provisions in the law that basically say that when if there are a number of people that have not gotten receipt, that's gotta be something that the judge considers, and they've gotta consider that in the allocation that there's probably people out there that haven't gotten receipt and are gonna come back later on.

And then the second thing is, you know, it it just seems like if this is happening as much as it is, and I can sort of see this. You do got powerful interest that basically just want the adjudication to be completed.

The the folks that don't know about it are gonna be the small family farmers, people that are not reading a notice in a newspaper if they, you know, if they, you know I I don't know what the notice is for property that I own you know, where a notice would go if you just went off a public record. But I'm just wondering if there could be more explicit criterion for when an adjudication can be opened when you've got groups of people that haven't gotten actual notice.

If if I could just very quickly, I would just say, it seems to me that if you have a thousand people that were sent a notice and a 100 of them, you don't have the receipt back. Remember, the receipt back is supposed to be the person you're paying, supposed to be getting the receipt back. Right? That the first burden ought to be on you that to prove you really did service, and this is just somebody who's just, you know, being an obstructionist.

So we I think we could that's one of the things that could happen.

There could be some burden on the notifier to prove they they went through good notification rather than the burden is on them to hire attorneys and sue and say, hey. We weren't properly notified.

Yeah. Yeah.

Last thing, I think it's a great bill. I'll have you support it. I mean, I grew up on a farm, and, obviously, you know, water rights were an important part of the ability to sustain yourself and your family, and, you know, it's an incredibly important thing. And I I know from this whole area that that area is arcane. It is a body that is, you know, sort of set aside and and, you know, and it is controlled by large powerful landowners.

And so just wanna thank you for bringing the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. And, you know, that old saying, whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over. Right? I mean, this is especially if you have a farm, that's your life's blood. And so I think, you know, I trust our judges to kind of, you know, if it's there's the HOA, send it you know, they or or an apartment condo, they can send it to the HOA or register.

I mean, there's different ways that I I think that we wanna give a little flexibility to the judges, but there's no doubt that someone's a water pumper, what what have you, that we we need to make certain, that they're aware because we focus so much on access to justice in this committee. Well, the the first part of access to justice is notice. If you don't know, you have no justice.

And so I really appreciate the author for so keenly focusing on this, and I'm certainly open to other measures that you might come forward with in terms of making it an even stronger piece legislation. And our committee is here to help work work with you on that.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Kalra, aye. Macedo?

Motions do pass as amended. Kalra?

Aye.

Aye.

Macedo, aye. Bauer-Kahan. Bryan?

Aye.

Bryan, aye. Connolly?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Aye.

Harabedian, aye. Pacheco?

Aye.

Dixon, aye. Harabedian?

Zbur, aye.

Sanchez, Aye. Stefani? Zbur?

Pacheco, aye. Papan? Sanchez?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That bill is out?

We are on item seven, AB

And no one ever

2534. We have a motion by mister Harabedian.

Which bank? Awful.

Second by mister Bryan. Mister Kalra, mister chair, you can be in whenever you're ready.

Thank you, madam chair and members. A b twenty five thirty four is a measure that will protect individuals from being forced into a marriage and help survivors be safe from a forced marriage. This bill extends protections under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act to explicitly allow individuals to file a restraining order on the basis of a forced marriage or the attempts, threats, or preparation to compel marriage.

Survivors of forced marriage frequently experience overlapping forms of abuse, including threats of violence, sexual assault, confinement, isolation, financial controls, surveillance, and immigrant immigration related threats. Additionally, coercion is often reinforced through extended family members or community members and leaders, making it difficult for survivors to escape a situation with little to no support or protection.

While the Domestic Violence Prevention Act recognizes coercive control and conduct that disturbs the peace of a of a protected party, it does not clearly list forced marriage as a basis for a restraining order. As a result, survivors are uncertain whether their situation is covered by the act and are left with few options. AB twenty five thirty four will extend these protective orders under the act to explicitly include forced marriage.

Courts will be able to issue protective orders to all parties that are involved in the forced marriage or coercion process. Additionally, the bill will will prohibit the facilitation of any marriage for the protected party, require that travel documents be returned to the protected party, and ensure the protected party is not removed or prevented from going to places like school, attorney meetings, medical appointments, or other activities.

AB 2534 will empower individuals, especially young girls and women, to take courageous tests to protect themselves from being forced into a marriage or to feel safe and secure to escape the harms of a forced marriage. With me today to provide supporting testimony is Sadia Khan, policy advocate with Family Violence Law Center.

Madam vice chair and committee members, my name is Sadia Khan. I'm a policy advocate with the Family Violence Law Center, and I wanna thank you for allowing me to share my story today. Is it broken? Those were the words that ring through my ears as I woke up to find my abuser on top of me and my clothes laying on the floor. Is it broken?

He repeated, referring to the fact that he was unable to force himself into me. While I also I'll spare you the horrific details of what came next, this is how I woke up the night of my forced marriage. I remember being locked in a room the night before being told I would be beaten if I left the room or tried to protest the marriage.

I had never before met this man, and yet I was sitting there staring at the marriage contract trying to make sense of the words, except I didn't know how to read the language that stared back at me. What but what I did know was that my life was about to change drastically.

This man was twelve years my senior senior and often bragged about how he beat the women in his life. I remember the first day I set foot into his home, and he told me I wasn't allowed to practice my faith nor go to school. I wasn't allowed to make new friends nor maintain contact with my family or friends. In the nine months following the forced marriage, my fate was similar to that of Dolores Huerta. Her story mirrors how I too became a parent.

At 19 years old, my biggest worry should have been planning my college schedule and the career path I wanted to take, not trying to figure out how to take my own life to escape this abuse. I had to rely on the courts of another nation to grant me a forced marriage protection order. No American should ever have to beg another country to protect them. But I'm not alone.

Among the 22,000,000 people around the world who were forced to marry in 2021, seven million were men and nearly sixty percent of the victims were 18 years or older at the time the marriage took place.

For every statistic, there's a real person with real stories, people you might pass on the streets, people who are your neighbors, coworkers, constituents, and sometimes it's the person sitting right in front of you. AB twenty five thirty four will help protect Californians from forced marriage and provide relief when survivors are seeking to escape. Today, we have a unique opportunity to pass a bill that will expand existing protective orders to prevent forced marriage by addressing the unique threats and forms of abuse survivors face.

As you heard in my own story and what is true for so many others, forced marriage is not a single act. It's a gateway to ongoing violence.

By creating a tool for intervention, we will spare Californians the pain of forced marriage and all the harms that follow. AB twenty five thirty four will empower survivors to define for themselves the the protections they need, determine from whom they need protection, and offer tools for prevention and intervention, both of which are currently lacking here in California. My legal battle has been twelve years in the making, and it isn't over yet.

Every human being deserves the right and full autonomy to choose their own happily ever after, something myself and many others have been robbed of. It is for these reasons that I urge your support for survivors, and I vote on a b twenty five thirty four.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your strength. Do we have any others in the room in support? Good morning. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Thank you.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the dice. Mister Zuberth.

I just wanna thank the witness for being here today. I know that this is probably not an easy thing to do and just, am grateful that you're doing this for others that, really are, enduring these kinds of conditions. So thank you, and I wanna thank the author and would love to be added as a co author.

Thank you, mister Zuber. Miss Dixon?

Thank you. Madam vice chair, I support the bill strongly, and I appreciate Assemblymember Kalorama, chair, bringing this forward. I have a question. Is this does this bill, in addition to the domestic violence aspect of it, but how does this intersect with forced marriage? And I think that's a good thing, but I just want to know how to protect or prohibit the forced marriage part of it.

Well, but there are so there's a couple things here. There's already a a ban on forced marriage. You're not allowed to get for it. But what this does is actually allows you to take action before it happens. We don't wanna wait until someone's already been forced to go through a marriage for them to have the ability to do some legal have some legal action.

So this actually gets ahead of it by allowing an individual to seek a protective order, not only against the potential family member or the potential future spouse that are being forced that's being forced upon them, but even members of the community. Sometimes there could be members of clergy. There could be other members of community that create that kind of envelope around the the the victim, potential victim and survivor. That really makes it difficult for them to maneuver.

This would allow that restraining order to be placed against any of those individuals that are part of the process of forcing forcing an individual into a forced marriage.

So it kinda gets a it's it's kind of a I I see it as a gap in our current laws, but not allowing early action when you're being put in that position.

So you're really not prohibiting because I've looked into this because in my district I have a large constituent base of Iranian and Indian women who have talked to me about doing a bill to prohibit forced marriage, but I understand it's very complex and I'd certainly want to. But it's between this you mentioned your age was 19 and then the 18, but I hear about a lot of 18 issues.

And and that's a great point because both child marriage as well as forced marriage are not allowable under the law. However, this seeks to a lot of people that would are 18, 19 years old, well, they're not children anymore, but they're still or or 20 or 25, at any age can still be a victim of a forced marriage. It's not just whether they're a minor or not. So this actually fixes that gap.

And, as I mentioned, forced marriages are already illegal, but this allows action before you get to the point of going through a forced marriage and now retroactively having to have the marriage annulled, having to go through a legal process in retrospect.

And so I'm glad you mentioned the the child marriage aspect because this also fixes that gap because it's not just children that are But

they wait a 16 year old would be covered under this.

Oh, certainly. Oh, certainly. Certainly. Absolutely. It would be anyone, but I think the key aspect is that because it would fall under the domestic violence restraining order process, you could be any age and still have access to this protection.

That's very smart. Well, thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Dixon. Miss Pappen?

Well, I just came, but I I I'm so glad that I got to hear your testimony. And under no circumstances should any of this be tolerated. So I thank the author. I thank you for being bold enough to be here and for I regret the journey that you've had to go through, but I just had to chime in. So thank you for your strength, and thank you for fighting the good fight.

Thank you, miss Papp and miss Stephanie. Yep.

Thank you, chair. Thank you for moving this forward. And I'm so sorry. I only got to hear, half of your testimony, but I did wanna add my name as a co author and, definitely believe that we should not be allowing forced marriages and we should be increasing ways to prevent that from happening. And I also believe that we shouldn't be allowing anyone under the age of 18 to get married at all, but that's a subject for another day.

But I definitely think that it's really important that we do everything we can to increase abilities to make sure that we are protecting those that are being forced into these marriages against their will. So thank you to the author, and I definitely would like to be added as a co author.

Thank you, miss Stephanie. Oh, miss Wagner.

I'd like to be a co author as well. Forgot that part.