California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: In Committee

SB 652 — Professional sports teams: relocation agreements.

Last action — Died on the inactive file.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

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

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law regulates contracts for particular transactions, including contracts for health studio services, the lease or rental of athletic facilities, and the sale of sport memorabilia. This bill would prohibit a professional sports team that has previously entered into a financial agreement with a public entity from entering into a relocation agreement, as defined, unless it first provides to the public entity a bond, undertaking, or deposit in an amount adequate to ensure that its obligations under the financial agreement will be satisfied. The bill also would prohibit a professional sports team from entering into a relocation agreement if that team is in breach or default of any financial agreement, or if entry into a relocation agreement would cause a breach or default of any financial agreement, unless and until the breach or default is cured. The bill would provide that any agreement entered into in violation of these prohibitions is contrary to public policy and is unenforceable. The bill would authorize the home public entity and home community, as defined, to seek, and would require the court to grant, an injunction to enjoin performance of any act under a relocation agreement that is made unenforceable by this bill. The bill would provide that performance under a relocation agreement entered into in violation of these prohibitions shall not be enjoined if all of the financial obligations the professional sports team owes to a home public entity and home community under a financial agreement are satisfied in full. The bill would require that any action or proceeding pursuant to these provisions be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the home public entity and home community are located. The bill would provide that these provisions apply to any relocation agreement entered on or after January 1, 2011. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Died on the inactive file.

  2. Ordered to inactive file on request of Senator Steinberg.

  3. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  4. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 3. Noes 1. Page 765.) (April 26).

  5. Set for hearing April 26.

  6. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  8. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  9. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 22.

  10. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Dickinson · Cosponsor
  • Pan · Cosponsor
  • Steinberg · Primary
  • Beth Gaines · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Steinberg

Co-sponsors (3)

Not signed on (118)

118 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 118 →

"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.

Passed 3 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 3101
Total 3101
% of votes cast 60%20%0%20%
How each member voted (5)
Member Party Vote
Evans — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Blakeslee — Not Voting
Leno — Yea
Harman — Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety labor
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 652 do?
Existing law regulates contracts for particular transactions, including contracts for health studio services, the lease or rental of athletic facilities, and the sale of sport memorabilia. This bill would prohibit a professional sports team that has previously entered into a financial agreement with a public entity from entering into a relocation agreement, as defined, unless it first provides to the public entity a bond, undertaking, or deposit in an amount adequate to ensure that its obligations under the financial agreement will be satisfied. The bill also would prohibit a professional sports team from entering into a relocation agreement if that team is in breach or default of any financial agreement, or if entry into a relocation agreement would cause a breach or default of any financial agreement, unless and until the breach or default is cured. The bill would provide that any agreement entered into in violation of these prohibitions is contrary to public policy and is unenforceable. The bill would authorize the home public entity and home community, as defined, to seek, and would require the court to grant, an injunction to enjoin performance of any act under a relocation agreement that is made unenforceable by this bill. The bill would provide that performance under a relocation agreement entered into in violation of these prohibitions shall not be enjoined if all of the financial obligations the professional sports team owes to a home public entity and home community under a financial agreement are satisfied in full. The bill would require that any action or proceeding pursuant to these provisions be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the home public entity and home community are located. The bill would provide that these provisions apply to any relocation agreement entered on or after January 1, 2011. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Who sponsors SB 652?
SB 652 is sponsored by Dickinson, Pan, Steinberg, and Beth Gaines.
What is the current status of SB 652?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 652?
Track SB 652 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 652

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 652

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →