California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 2930 — Unlawful detainer: nuisance: unlawful weapons and ammunition.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 880, Statutes of 2018.

Track this bill free

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

  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 16, 2018. 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 6 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

Existing law defines a nuisance and includes within this definition anything that is injurious to health, including nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition. Existing law establishes the criteria for determining when a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer, including conduct involving illegally selling a controlled substance, or the commission of an offense involving the unlawful possession or use of illegal weapons or ammunition or the use of the premises to further that purpose. Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, the City of Oakland, and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer to abate the nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition on real property, as specified. This bill would prohibit a jurisdiction from bringing on unlawful detainer action under these provisions unless that entity made a good faith effort to collect and report certain information to the California Research Bureau. Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Oakland and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file an action for unlawful detainer in the name of the people against any person who is in violation of the nuisance or the illegal purpose provisions of the unlawful detainer provision described above, with respect to controlled substances. Existing law also requires the city attorney and city prosecutor of the participating jurisdictions, by a specified date, to submit information to the California Research Bureau, and the bureau in turn, to submit a report to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, as specified, summarizing the information collected and evaluating the merits of the programs established, by March 20, 2016, and March 20, 2018. This bill would extend the sunset dates for these provisions until January 1, 2024, would additionally apply the unlawful detainer provisions with respect to controlled substances to real property in the City of Long Beach, and would extend the reporting deadlines for the California Research Bureau to submit its report to the legislative committees to March 20, 2021, and March 20, 2023. The bill would also eliminate some elements that the local authorities are required to report to the California Research Bureau. The bill would, for unlawful detainer auctions for properties situated in Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento for nuisances related to controlled substances, provide that a defendant could raise as an affirmative defense that the jurisdiction did not make a good faith effort to collect and report the required information. Because this bill would extend existing reporting requirements for local authorities, it 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 the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Sacramento.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 880, Statutes of 2018.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 80. Noes 0. Page 6361.).

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 16 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 5282.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

  8. From committee: Be ordered to second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to Consent Calendar.

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

  10. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 19).

  11. Referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  13. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 5500.)

  14. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  15. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (May 25).

  16. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  17. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  18. Read second time and amended.

  19. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 17).

  20. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  22. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  23. From printer. May be heard in committee March 19.

  24. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Santiago · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Santiago

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 2930 SANTIAGO Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 80 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 58000
Democratic 16000
Republican 6000
Total 80000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Harper — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Chau — Yea
Medina — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Burke — Yea
Fong — Yea
Salas — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gray — Yea
Holden — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Rivas — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Levine — Yea
Low — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Baker — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Weber — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Daly — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Consent Calendar AB2930

Passed 37 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 32003
Democratic 5000
Total 37003
% of votes cast 93%0%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Roth — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Cannella — Not Voting
Mitchell — Yea
Allen — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Delgado — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
De León — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Pan — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Chang — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Fuller — Not Voting
Galgiani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 2930 SANTIAGO Assembly Third Reading

Passed 77 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 56001
Democratic 15000
Republican 6000
Total 77001
% of votes cast 99%0%0%1%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Low — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Wood — Yea
Gray — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Chau — Yea
Fong — Yea
Salas — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Chu — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Frazier — Not Voting
Burke — Yea
Harper — Yea
Holden — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
McCarty — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Daly — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 12001
Democratic 3000
Republican 1000
Total 16001
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Nazarian — Yea
Fong — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Not Voting
Eggman — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety housing
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 2930 do?
Existing law defines a nuisance and includes within this definition anything that is injurious to health, including nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition. Existing law establishes the criteria for determining when a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer, including conduct involving illegally selling a controlled substance, or the commission of an offense involving the unlawful possession or use of illegal weapons or ammunition or the use of the premises to further that purpose. Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, the City of Oakland, and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer to abate the nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition on real property, as specified. This bill would prohibit a jurisdiction from bringing on unlawful detainer action under these provisions unless that entity made a good faith effort to collect and report certain information to the California Research Bureau. Existing law, until January 1, 2019, for real property situated in the City of Oakland and the City of Sacramento, authorizes a city prosecutor or city attorney to file an action for unlawful detainer in the name of the people against any person who is in violation of the nuisance or the illegal purpose provisions of the unlawful detainer provision described above, with respect to controlled substances. Existing law also requires the city attorney and city prosecutor of the participating jurisdictions, by a specified date, to submit information to the California Research Bureau, and the bureau in turn, to submit a report to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, as specified, summarizing the information collected and evaluating the merits of the programs established, by March 20, 2016, and March 20, 2018. This bill would extend the sunset dates for these provisions until January 1, 2024, would additionally apply the unlawful detainer provisions with respect to controlled substances to real property in the City of Long Beach, and would extend the reporting deadlines for the California Research Bureau to submit its report to the legislative committees to March 20, 2021, and March 20, 2023. The bill would also eliminate some elements that the local authorities are required to report to the California Research Bureau. The bill would, for unlawful detainer auctions for properties situated in Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento for nuisances related to controlled substances, provide that a defendant could raise as an affirmative defense that the jurisdiction did not make a good faith effort to collect and report the required information. Because this bill would extend existing reporting requirements for local authorities, it 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 the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Sacramento.
Who sponsors AB 2930?
AB 2930 is sponsored by Santiago.
What is the current status of AB 2930?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 16, 2018. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 2930?
Track AB 2930 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2930

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 2930

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →