California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

SB 738 — The Reclaim Act.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 21, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Odds of enactment

Low chance

Based on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.

Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.

A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.

Prognosis

Stalled 28% · moderate confidence

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 2 recorded votes so far.

Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.

Summary

Existing law permits a court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, to enter a prefiling order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Existing law permits a presiding judge or a presiding justice to allow a vexatious litigant's filing only under specified circumstances and permits the presiding judge to condition the filing upon the furnishing of security. Existing law defines a "vexatious litigant" for these purposes to include, among other things, a person who, after being restrained by a domestic violence restraining order, and while that order is still in place, commenced, prosecuted, or maintained one or more litigations against a person protected by the restraining order. Existing law authorizes a person protected by a restraining order issued after a hearing pursuant to the above-described provisions to file a petition, without fee, to have the person who is the subject of that order declared a vexatious litigant if, while the restraining order is still in place, they commence, prosecute, or maintain litigation against the person protected by the restraining order in an action that is determined to be meritless and caused the person protected by the order to be harassed or intimidated. Existing law establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and providing for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable those persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. Existing law authorizes a court to issue a protective order enjoining a party from engaging in specified acts, including threatening or harassing the other party or disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party refers to conduct that includes coercive control, which includes unreasonably engaging in, among other things, isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support. Existing law makes an intentional and knowing violation of a protective order punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to, among other things, promote the health and safety of domestic violence survivors and their children. Existing law recognizes that litigation abuse is the use of legal or bureaucratic procedures by abusive partners to continue to attack, harass, intimidate, coercively control, or maintain contact with a former partner through the legal system. Existing law limits and controls discovery in family law proceedings to the least intrusive methods, as specified. Existing law authorizes a court to issue, after notice and a hearing, orders enjoining a party from engaging in specified behavior, including contacting, attacking, or threatening another party, and excluding the party from a family dwelling. Existing law further provides that when determining whether to make those orders, the court must consider whether its failure to make any of those orders may jeopardize the safety of specified parties. This bill, the Reclaim Act, would remove the requirement that the domestic violence restraining order still be in place for purposes of a person being declared a vexatious litigant, and instead would apply when the restraining order is in effect, has expired, or has been modified or terminated. The bill would, rather than requiring a determination whether the prior litigation was meritless and caused the protected person to be harassed or intimidated, instead require the court to determine whether a prior litigation was determined to be frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the protected person. The bill would also expand the definition of a vexatious litigant to include a person who following a conviction, including a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere, of a crime that involves domestic violence, as defined, commenced, prosecuted, or maintained litigation against the victim that is determined to be frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the victim. This bill would authorize, in an action filed by the person convicted of the crimes against the victim of those crimes, the victim to file a petition, without fee, to have the person who was convicted of those crimes to be declared a vexatious litigant. This bill would prohibit a plaintiff in a civil action, who has been deemed to be a vexatious litigant on the basis of the above-described provisions and who is the subject of a restraining order protecting the defendant, from seeking information from the defendant in discovery that is protected by the restraining order without prior authorization from the court. The bill would allow the court to grant a motion for disclosure of information protected by the restraining order only upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff, as prescribed. The bill would authorize a defendant who receives a discovery request in violation of these provisions to disregard the request without filing a motion for a protective order and would prohibit the court from issuing sanctions against a defendant who disregarded such a request in good faith. This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from commencing litigation that is frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the other party. By expanding the scope of enjoined activities under a protective order, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize, if, on or after the date a protective order is issued, the respondent and the petitioner are engaged in a legal proceeding initiated by the respondent, the petitioner to request a court order preventing the respondent from seeking discovery, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to consider the scope of the protective order and whether the information sought, or the discovery method selected, appears intended to circumvent the protective order. This bill would also make a legislative finding recognizing that litigation abuse may emotionally or financially harm domestic violence survivors with unnecessary, irrelevant, or intrusive discovery. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  3. Set for hearing May 23.

  4. May 12 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  5. Set for hearing May 12.

  6. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  7. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 942.) (April 29).

  8. Set for hearing April 29.

  9. April 22 hearing postponed by committee.

  10. Set for hearing April 22.

  11. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  12. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  13. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  14. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  15. Read first time.

  16. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 24.

  17. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 13 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 2000
Democratic 11000
Total 13000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 738 do?
Existing law permits a court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, to enter a prefiling order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Existing law permits a presiding judge or a presiding justice to allow a vexatious litigant's filing only under specified circumstances and permits the presiding judge to condition the filing upon the furnishing of security. Existing law defines a "vexatious litigant" for these purposes to include, among other things, a person who, after being restrained by a domestic violence restraining order, and while that order is still in place, commenced, prosecuted, or maintained one or more litigations against a person protected by the restraining order. Existing law authorizes a person protected by a restraining order issued after a hearing pursuant to the above-described provisions to file a petition, without fee, to have the person who is the subject of that order declared a vexatious litigant if, while the restraining order is still in place, they commence, prosecute, or maintain litigation against the person protected by the restraining order in an action that is determined to be meritless and caused the person protected by the order to be harassed or intimidated. Existing law establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and providing for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable those persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. Existing law authorizes a court to issue a protective order enjoining a party from engaging in specified acts, including threatening or harassing the other party or disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party refers to conduct that includes coercive control, which includes unreasonably engaging in, among other things, isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support. Existing law makes an intentional and knowing violation of a protective order punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to, among other things, promote the health and safety of domestic violence survivors and their children. Existing law recognizes that litigation abuse is the use of legal or bureaucratic procedures by abusive partners to continue to attack, harass, intimidate, coercively control, or maintain contact with a former partner through the legal system. Existing law limits and controls discovery in family law proceedings to the least intrusive methods, as specified. Existing law authorizes a court to issue, after notice and a hearing, orders enjoining a party from engaging in specified behavior, including contacting, attacking, or threatening another party, and excluding the party from a family dwelling. Existing law further provides that when determining whether to make those orders, the court must consider whether its failure to make any of those orders may jeopardize the safety of specified parties. This bill, the Reclaim Act, would remove the requirement that the domestic violence restraining order still be in place for purposes of a person being declared a vexatious litigant, and instead would apply when the restraining order is in effect, has expired, or has been modified or terminated. The bill would, rather than requiring a determination whether the prior litigation was meritless and caused the protected person to be harassed or intimidated, instead require the court to determine whether a prior litigation was determined to be frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the protected person. The bill would also expand the definition of a vexatious litigant to include a person who following a conviction, including a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere, of a crime that involves domestic violence, as defined, commenced, prosecuted, or maintained litigation against the victim that is determined to be frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the victim. This bill would authorize, in an action filed by the person convicted of the crimes against the victim of those crimes, the victim to file a petition, without fee, to have the person who was convicted of those crimes to be declared a vexatious litigant. This bill would prohibit a plaintiff in a civil action, who has been deemed to be a vexatious litigant on the basis of the above-described provisions and who is the subject of a restraining order protecting the defendant, from seeking information from the defendant in discovery that is protected by the restraining order without prior authorization from the court. The bill would allow the court to grant a motion for disclosure of information protected by the restraining order only upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff, as prescribed. The bill would authorize a defendant who receives a discovery request in violation of these provisions to disregard the request without filing a motion for a protective order and would prohibit the court from issuing sanctions against a defendant who disregarded such a request in good faith. This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from commencing litigation that is frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the other party. By expanding the scope of enjoined activities under a protective order, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize, if, on or after the date a protective order is issued, the respondent and the petitioner are engaged in a legal proceeding initiated by the respondent, the petitioner to request a court order preventing the respondent from seeking discovery, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to consider the scope of the protective order and whether the information sought, or the discovery method selected, appears intended to circumvent the protective order. This bill would also make a legislative finding recognizing that litigation abuse may emotionally or financially harm domestic violence survivors with unnecessary, irrelevant, or intrusive discovery. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 738?
SB 738 is sponsored by Rubio, Susan (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 738?
This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 21, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track SB 738?
Track SB 738 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 738

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 738

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →