California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 2377 — Enforcement of judgments: appeals.

Last action — From committee without further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).

Track this bill free

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

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 specifies the circumstances in which an undertaking is required in order for the enforcement of a judgment or order to be stayed on appeal, including if the judgment or order is for money or the payment of money, or for costs awarded pursuant to specified provisions. Existing law requires that the undertaking in these cases be for double the amount of the judgment or order unless given by an admitted surety insurer, in which event the judgment would be 112 times the amount of the judgment or order. This bill would provide that the undertaking be set at the amounts described above unless the court, after notice and hearing, and for good cause shown, determines that a different amount is appropriate. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee without further action pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).

  2. In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage.

  3. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  5. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  6. Read first time.

  7. From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.

  8. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Huber · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Huber

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.

Failed 5 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 4500
Total 5500
% of votes cast 50%50%0%0%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Atkins — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Monning — Nay
Wieckowski — Nay
Huber — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Feuer — Nay
Dickinson — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

finance
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 2377 do?
Existing law specifies the circumstances in which an undertaking is required in order for the enforcement of a judgment or order to be stayed on appeal, including if the judgment or order is for money or the payment of money, or for costs awarded pursuant to specified provisions. Existing law requires that the undertaking in these cases be for double the amount of the judgment or order unless given by an admitted surety insurer, in which event the judgment would be 112 times the amount of the judgment or order. This bill would provide that the undertaking be set at the amounts described above unless the court, after notice and hearing, and for good cause shown, determines that a different amount is appropriate. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
Who sponsors AB 2377?
AB 2377 is sponsored by Huber.
What is the current status of AB 2377?
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 AB 2377?
Track AB 2377 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2377

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 2377

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →