California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 436 — Inverse condemnation: comparative fault.

Last action — From Senate committee without further action.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

(1) Existing law prohibits the taking of private property without the payment of just compensation and permits a person to maintain an action in inverse condemnation for the purpose of obtaining compensation for a taking. Existing law applies the doctrine of comparative fault for the purpose of apportioning responsibility and reducing damages to the extent a plaintiff is found partially at fault. This bill would apply the doctrine of comparative fault to inverse condemnation actions and would require a court or arbitrator to reduce the compensation paid to a plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding in direct proportion to his or her percentage of fault, if any, in the damaging of property that constitutes a taking, as specified. (2) Existing law governs offers by a party to compromise a dispute that is to be resolved by trial or arbitration. Existing law provides in this regard, among other things, that if the defendant makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff is prohibited from recovering his or her postoffer costs and is required to pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer. Existing law also awards to the plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding reasonable costs actually incurred because of that proceeding in the trial court, or in any appellate proceeding, in which the plaintiff prevails on any issue in that proceeding. This bill would provide, notwithstanding the latter provision, that if the defendant in an inverse condemnation action, on or after January 1, 2014, makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's postoffer costs. Additionally, the bill would provide that the plaintiff may be required to pay the defendant's costs for expert witnesses. Alternatively, if the plaintiff rejects the offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the bill would prohibit the plaintiff from recovering his or her postoffer costs, but would provide that the plaintiff shall not be ordered to pay the defendant's postoffer costs.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Senate committee without further action.

  2. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

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

  4. Referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 51. Noes 26. Page 1655.)

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (May 7).

  10. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  11. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  12. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  13. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  14. From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.

  15. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Jones-Sawyer · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Jones-Sawyer

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 436 JONES-SAWYER Assembly Third Reading

Passed 51 Yea · 26 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 452102
Democratic 6100
Republican 0400
Total 512602
% of votes cast 65%33%0%3%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Holden — Not Voting
Linder — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Nestande — Nay
Chesbro — Not Voting
Chávez — Nay
Conway — Nay
Donnelly — Nay
Stone — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Gorell — Nay
Hagman — Nay
Hall — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Levine — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Logue — Nay
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Chau — Yea
Cooley — Nay
Daly — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Williams — Yea
Fox — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 7 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5102
Democratic 2000
Total 7102
% of votes cast 70%10%0%20%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Alejo — Yea
Maienschein — Nay
Chau — Yea
Stone — Yea
Gorell — Not Voting
Wagner — Not Voting
Wieckowski — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing 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 436 do?
(1) Existing law prohibits the taking of private property without the payment of just compensation and permits a person to maintain an action in inverse condemnation for the purpose of obtaining compensation for a taking. Existing law applies the doctrine of comparative fault for the purpose of apportioning responsibility and reducing damages to the extent a plaintiff is found partially at fault. This bill would apply the doctrine of comparative fault to inverse condemnation actions and would require a court or arbitrator to reduce the compensation paid to a plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding in direct proportion to his or her percentage of fault, if any, in the damaging of property that constitutes a taking, as specified. (2) Existing law governs offers by a party to compromise a dispute that is to be resolved by trial or arbitration. Existing law provides in this regard, among other things, that if the defendant makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff is prohibited from recovering his or her postoffer costs and is required to pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer. Existing law also awards to the plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding reasonable costs actually incurred because of that proceeding in the trial court, or in any appellate proceeding, in which the plaintiff prevails on any issue in that proceeding. This bill would provide, notwithstanding the latter provision, that if the defendant in an inverse condemnation action, on or after January 1, 2014, makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's postoffer costs. Additionally, the bill would provide that the plaintiff may be required to pay the defendant's costs for expert witnesses. Alternatively, if the plaintiff rejects the offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the bill would prohibit the plaintiff from recovering his or her postoffer costs, but would provide that the plaintiff shall not be ordered to pay the defendant's postoffer costs.
Who sponsors AB 436?
AB 436 is sponsored by Jones-Sawyer.
What is the current status of AB 436?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 436?
Track AB 436 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 436

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 436

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →