California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 2394 — Civil process and notices: ministerial officers.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 680, Statutes of 2010.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 19, 2010. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 7 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) Existing law provides for the service of process and notices, including a writ or summons issued in the course of judicial proceedings, by the sheriff or other ministerial officer. Certain documents and records relating to the service of process and notices, including any direction or authority by a party or his or her attorney to a sheriff in respect to the execution or return of process and instructions from a judgment creditor to a levying officer, are required to be in writing, as specified. This bill would generally authorize a levying officer, as defined, to electronically transmit and receive specified documents and records relating to enforcement of judgments. The bill would require specified information to be included with the electronic transmission, and would require a levying officer to exclude or redact certain identifiers from any document or record made available to the public. The bill would provide additional safeguards and procedures relating to the electronic transmission of documents and records, and make other conforming changes. (2) Existing law requires a writ of execution, possession, or sale, and written instructions from a judgment creditor to a levying officer relating to the enforcement of a judgment, to include specified information. This bill would require those process documents to specify certain additional information, including the type of legal entity of the judgment debtor, if other than a natural person. The bill also would require a writ of execution, possession, or sale to include a statement indicating whether the case is limited or unlimited. (3) Existing law specifies procedures for issuance and return of postjudgment writs of execution. Among other things, the levying officer is required to return the writ to the court, together with a report of his or her actions and an accounting of amounts collected and costs incurred, within specified time periods. This bill would authorize the levying officer to retain the original writ or an electronic copy and to electronically file with the court a return of his or her actions, and an accounting of amounts collected and costs incurred, in lieu of returning the paper version of an original writ of execution. The return of the levying officer's actions and the accounting would be required to be filed with the court, and the writ would expire, within those specified time periods. The bill would make other conforming changes. (4) Existing law requires an earnings withholding order to be served by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail. This bill, instead, would require an earnings withholding order to be served by personal delivery or by first-class mail, as specified. (5) The Documentary Transfer Tax Act authorizes the board of supervisors of a county or city and county to impose a tax upon specified instruments that transfer specified interests in real property. Existing law requires the levying officer conducting the sale of real property that has been levied upon, when the purchaser pays the amount due, to execute and deliver a deed of sale to the purchaser and record a duplicate of the deed of sale in the office of the county recorder. This bill would clarify that the purchaser of levied upon real property is responsible for paying the documentary transfer tax. (6) Existing law establishes procedures, as specified, as an alternative to issuing a warrant for contempt, pursuant to which a court may issue an arrest warrant for a witness who failed to appear pursuant to a subpoena or a person who failed to appear pursuant to a court order. Existing law specifies the contents of the arrest warrant, including the signature of the magistrate issuing the warrant. This bill, instead, would require the arrest warrant to include the signature or name of the judicial officer issuing the warrant. (7) By increasing the duties of local ministerial officers relating to the service of process and notice, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 680, Statutes of 2010.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and to the Governor at 4:45 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6398.)

  5. Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 6373.)

  6. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 20 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  7. Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 4603.)

  8. Ordered to Special Consent Calendar.

  9. Read second time. To third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (August 2).

  11. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 22).

  12. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  13. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  14. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  15. Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 72. Noes 0. Page 5235.)

  16. Read second time. To Consent Calendar.

  17. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (May 12).

  18. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  19. (Corrected May 10.)

  20. Read second time and amended.

  21. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 20).

  22. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  23. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  24. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  25. Read first time.

  26. From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.

  27. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Brownley · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Brownley

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

AB 2394 BROWNLEY Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 90 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 84001
Democratic 3000
Republican 3000
Total 90001
% of votes cast 99%0%0%1%
How each member voted (91)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Bill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Charles — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Huber — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Bass — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Knight — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nava — Yea
Norby — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Audra — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Tran — Yea
Villines — Yea
Silva — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Adams — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Jeffries — Not Voting
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Special Consent #31 AB2394 Brownley

Passed 35 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 32004
Democratic 2000
Republican 1000
Total 35004
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Florez — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Corbett — Not Voting
Ducheny — Yea
Harman — Yea
Hollingsworth — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Oropeza — Not Voting
Pavley — Yea
Romero — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wiggins — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Huff — Yea
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Wyland — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 8 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8003
Total 8003
% of votes cast 73%0%0%27%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Wyland — Not Voting
Corbett — Yea
Leno — Yea
Price — Yea
Alquist — Not Voting
Ashburn — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Emmerson — Yea

Official roll call →

AB 2394 BROWNLEY Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session

Passed 80 Yea · 0 Nay · 11 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 740011
Democratic 3000
Republican 3000
Total 800011
% of votes cast 88%0%0%12%
How each member voted (91)
Member Party Vote
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Bill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Charles — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Bass — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Audra — Yea
De — Not Voting
La — Not Voting
Torre — Not Voting
Fletcher — Not Voting
John — Not Voting
A. — Not Voting
Perez — Not Voting
Feuer — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huber — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Knight — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Norby — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Tran — Yea
Adams — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Not Voting
Hill — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Nava — Not Voting
Nielsen — Yea
Silva — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Villines — Not Voting
Emmerson — Yea
Eng — Yea
Evans — Not Voting
Davis — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, to Consent Calendar.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 16001
Democratic 0001
Total 16002
% of votes cast 89%0%0%11%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Charles — Not Voting
Harkey — Yea
Conway — Yea
Miller — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Norby — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting

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 AB 2394 do?
(1) Existing law provides for the service of process and notices, including a writ or summons issued in the course of judicial proceedings, by the sheriff or other ministerial officer. Certain documents and records relating to the service of process and notices, including any direction or authority by a party or his or her attorney to a sheriff in respect to the execution or return of process and instructions from a judgment creditor to a levying officer, are required to be in writing, as specified. This bill would generally authorize a levying officer, as defined, to electronically transmit and receive specified documents and records relating to enforcement of judgments. The bill would require specified information to be included with the electronic transmission, and would require a levying officer to exclude or redact certain identifiers from any document or record made available to the public. The bill would provide additional safeguards and procedures relating to the electronic transmission of documents and records, and make other conforming changes. (2) Existing law requires a writ of execution, possession, or sale, and written instructions from a judgment creditor to a levying officer relating to the enforcement of a judgment, to include specified information. This bill would require those process documents to specify certain additional information, including the type of legal entity of the judgment debtor, if other than a natural person. The bill also would require a writ of execution, possession, or sale to include a statement indicating whether the case is limited or unlimited. (3) Existing law specifies procedures for issuance and return of postjudgment writs of execution. Among other things, the levying officer is required to return the writ to the court, together with a report of his or her actions and an accounting of amounts collected and costs incurred, within specified time periods. This bill would authorize the levying officer to retain the original writ or an electronic copy and to electronically file with the court a return of his or her actions, and an accounting of amounts collected and costs incurred, in lieu of returning the paper version of an original writ of execution. The return of the levying officer's actions and the accounting would be required to be filed with the court, and the writ would expire, within those specified time periods. The bill would make other conforming changes. (4) Existing law requires an earnings withholding order to be served by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail. This bill, instead, would require an earnings withholding order to be served by personal delivery or by first-class mail, as specified. (5) The Documentary Transfer Tax Act authorizes the board of supervisors of a county or city and county to impose a tax upon specified instruments that transfer specified interests in real property. Existing law requires the levying officer conducting the sale of real property that has been levied upon, when the purchaser pays the amount due, to execute and deliver a deed of sale to the purchaser and record a duplicate of the deed of sale in the office of the county recorder. This bill would clarify that the purchaser of levied upon real property is responsible for paying the documentary transfer tax. (6) Existing law establishes procedures, as specified, as an alternative to issuing a warrant for contempt, pursuant to which a court may issue an arrest warrant for a witness who failed to appear pursuant to a subpoena or a person who failed to appear pursuant to a court order. Existing law specifies the contents of the arrest warrant, including the signature of the magistrate issuing the warrant. This bill, instead, would require the arrest warrant to include the signature or name of the judicial officer issuing the warrant. (7) By increasing the duties of local ministerial officers relating to the service of process and notice, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Who sponsors AB 2394?
AB 2394 is sponsored by Brownley.
What is the current status of AB 2394?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 19, 2010. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 2394?
Track AB 2394 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2394

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 AB 2394

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →