California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 1813 — Courts: omnibus.

Last action — Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Mitchell.

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 2017-2018 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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) Whenever a judgment in class action litigation provides for the payment of money to members of the class, existing law requires any unpaid cash residue or unclaimed or abandoned class member funds generally attributable to California residents to be distributed by transmitting 25% of those funds to the State Treasury for deposit in the Trial Court Improvement and Modernization fund, at least 25% to the State Treasury for deposit in the Equal Access Fund of the Judicial Branch, and up to 50% to the nonprofit organizations or foundations, child advocacy programs, or nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent, to be used for specified purposes. Existing law requires this distribution unless for good cause shown the court makes a specific finding that an alternative distribution would better serve the public interest or the interest of the class. This bill would instead require the court, before the entry of a judgment in a class action, to determine the total amount that will be payable to all class members, and to set a date when the parties are to report to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the class members. After the report is received, the bill would require the court to amend the judgment to direct the defendant to pay the sum of the unpaid residue, plus interest, to nonprofit organizations or foundations to support projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent with the underlying cause of action, or to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent. The bill would require an attorney for a party to a class action to notify the court if he or she has a connection to a proposed nonparty recipient of class action settlement funds that could reasonably create the appearance of impropriety, as specified. The bill would require the court to transmit a copy of the judgment to the Judicial Council, and would require the judgment to contain information identifying nonparty recipients of class action settlement funds and other specified information. Commencing January 1, 2024, and on January 1 of every 5th year thereafter, the bill would require the California Research Bureau to prepare and publish on its Internet Web site a 5-year aggregate report of that information. (2) Existing law sets forth the number of judges for each division of each district of the court of appeal. Existing law provides that there are 7 judges in the division of the Court of Appeal for the 4th Appellate District that holds its regular sessions in the San Bernardino/Riverside area. This bill would increase the number of judges in that division to 8 judges. (3) Existing law specifies the number of judges for the superior court of each county, including 51 superior court judges in the County of Riverside. This bill would increase the number of judges for the superior court in the County of Riverside to 53. (4) Existing law establishes the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, which is financed by the imposition of various state court construction penalty assessments, parking surcharges, and filing fee surcharges related to specified civil actions. Existing law establishes the Immediate and Critical Needs Account within the fund, the proceeds of which may be used for the planning, design, construction, rehabilitation, renovation, replacement, or acquisition of court facilities, for the repayment of moneys appropriated for lease of court facilities pursuant to the issuance of lease-revenue bonds, for the payment for lease or rental of court facilities, and for trial court operations, as specified. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and chairs of the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Assembly Committee on Budget by March 1 of each year on the status of each project established by the State Public Works Board. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to submit a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, including specified project information before seeking the State Public Works Board establishment of the scope and cost. This bill would require the Judicial Council to submit to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Assembly Committee on Budget a long-term fund condition statement for the State Court Facilities Construction Fund and the Immediate and Critical Needs Account in conjunction with any future funding request for capital outlay to demonstrate that there is sufficient revenue to support existing debt or capital outlay obligations as well as the full project cost for the proposed project, with specified exceptions. The bill would also require the Judicial Council to conduct, or contract with an independent contractor to conduct, a reassessment of projects identified in the Update to Trial Court Capital-Outlay Plan and Prioritization Methodology, with specified exceptions. The bill would require a project to be reassessed and ranked according to criteria including the level of seismic risk, health and safety hazards, among other things. (5) Existing law, until July 1, 2018, imposes a supplemental fee of $40 for filing any first paper subject to the uniform fee in certain civil proceedings, subject to reduction if the amount of the General Fund appropriation to the Trial Court Trust Fund is decreased from the amount appropriated in the 2013–14 fiscal year. This bill would extend the operation of the supplemental fee until July 1, 2023. (6) Existing law, until July 1, 2018, requires a $1,000 fee to be paid on behalf of all plaintiffs, and by each defendant, intervenor, respondent, or adverse party to a civil action that is designated or determined to be a complex case. On and after July 1, 2018, existing law requires a fee of $550 to be paid under those circumstances. Existing law, until July 1, 2018, imposes a limitation of $18,000 on the total amount of complex fees collected from all defendants, intervenors, respondents, or other adverse parties appearing in a complex case. On and after July 1, 2018, existing law imposes a limitation of $10,000 on the amount of the fee required to be paid in those circumstances. This bill would extend the operation of the $1,000 complex case fee and the $18,000 total fee limitation to July 1, 2023, thereby extending that higher fee rate and limitation until that date. (7) Under existing law, the uniform fee for filing any specified motion, application, order to show cause, or any other paper requiring a hearing subsequent to the first paper is $60 until July 1, 2018, at which time that fee is reduced to $40. This bill would extend the operation of the $60 filing fee to July 1, 2023, thereby extending that higher fee until that date. (8) Under existing law, until January 1, 2018, the filing fee for a request for special notice is $40. This bill would extend the operation of that filing fee to January 1, 2024. (9) Existing law establishes procedures for adjudicating traffic violations. Under existing law, the court may provide for the trial of any alleged infraction involving a violation of the Vehicle Code, or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to that code, and the court is required to provide that the defendant may elect to have a trial by written declaration upon any of these alleged infractions. This bill would, until June 30, 2022, require the Judicial Council to sponsor a pilot program to facilitate online adjudication of infraction violations of the Vehicle Code for which a personal appearance is not required. The bill would require the council to seek to select at least 8 courts that are willing to participate in the program. The bill would require the program to offer online adjudication of traffic infractions, including, among other things, an ability-to-pay determination. The bill would authorize the pilot court, among other dispositions, to waive, reduce, or suspend the amount due, in whole or in part, extend the time for payment or establish an installment plan, or allow community service in lieu of the amount due, as specified. The bill would establish procedures for determining a defendant's ability to pay. The bill would require the Judicial Council to submit a report on the implementation of the pilot program to the Legislature on January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021, and to submit an evaluation of the program to the Legislature no later than June 30, 2022. (10) This bill would appropriate $4,000,000 from the General Fund to the Judicial Council, for transfer by the Controller to the Trial Court Trust Fund, to further the effort to expand interpreter services into all civil proceedings, as specified. (11) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Mitchell.

  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  3. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 2.) (June 18).

  4. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  5. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  6. Referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

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

  8. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 50. Noes 22. Page 5100.)

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. Ordered to second reading.

  11. Withdrawn from committee.

  12. Assembly Rule 96 suspended. (Ayes 46. Noes 18. Page 5026.)

  13. Referred to Com. on BUDGET.

  14. From printer. May be heard in committee February 10.

  15. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Budget · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Budget

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

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights labor education
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 1813 do?
(1) Whenever a judgment in class action litigation provides for the payment of money to members of the class, existing law requires any unpaid cash residue or unclaimed or abandoned class member funds generally attributable to California residents to be distributed by transmitting 25% of those funds to the State Treasury for deposit in the Trial Court Improvement and Modernization fund, at least 25% to the State Treasury for deposit in the Equal Access Fund of the Judicial Branch, and up to 50% to the nonprofit organizations or foundations, child advocacy programs, or nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent, to be used for specified purposes. Existing law requires this distribution unless for good cause shown the court makes a specific finding that an alternative distribution would better serve the public interest or the interest of the class. This bill would instead require the court, before the entry of a judgment in a class action, to determine the total amount that will be payable to all class members, and to set a date when the parties are to report to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the class members. After the report is received, the bill would require the court to amend the judgment to direct the defendant to pay the sum of the unpaid residue, plus interest, to nonprofit organizations or foundations to support projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent with the underlying cause of action, or to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent. The bill would require an attorney for a party to a class action to notify the court if he or she has a connection to a proposed nonparty recipient of class action settlement funds that could reasonably create the appearance of impropriety, as specified. The bill would require the court to transmit a copy of the judgment to the Judicial Council, and would require the judgment to contain information identifying nonparty recipients of class action settlement funds and other specified information. Commencing January 1, 2024, and on January 1 of every 5th year thereafter, the bill would require the California Research Bureau to prepare and publish on its Internet Web site a 5-year aggregate report of that information. (2) Existing law sets forth the number of judges for each division of each district of the court of appeal. Existing law provides that there are 7 judges in the division of the Court of Appeal for the 4th Appellate District that holds its regular sessions in the San Bernardino/Riverside area. This bill would increase the number of judges in that division to 8 judges. (3) Existing law specifies the number of judges for the superior court of each county, including 51 superior court judges in the County of Riverside. This bill would increase the number of judges for the superior court in the County of Riverside to 53. (4) Existing law establishes the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, which is financed by the imposition of various state court construction penalty assessments, parking surcharges, and filing fee surcharges related to specified civil actions. Existing law establishes the Immediate and Critical Needs Account within the fund, the proceeds of which may be used for the planning, design, construction, rehabilitation, renovation, replacement, or acquisition of court facilities, for the repayment of moneys appropriated for lease of court facilities pursuant to the issuance of lease-revenue bonds, for the payment for lease or rental of court facilities, and for trial court operations, as specified. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and chairs of the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Assembly Committee on Budget by March 1 of each year on the status of each project established by the State Public Works Board. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to submit a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, including specified project information before seeking the State Public Works Board establishment of the scope and cost. This bill would require the Judicial Council to submit to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Assembly Committee on Budget a long-term fund condition statement for the State Court Facilities Construction Fund and the Immediate and Critical Needs Account in conjunction with any future funding request for capital outlay to demonstrate that there is sufficient revenue to support existing debt or capital outlay obligations as well as the full project cost for the proposed project, with specified exceptions. The bill would also require the Judicial Council to conduct, or contract with an independent contractor to conduct, a reassessment of projects identified in the Update to Trial Court Capital-Outlay Plan and Prioritization Methodology, with specified exceptions. The bill would require a project to be reassessed and ranked according to criteria including the level of seismic risk, health and safety hazards, among other things. (5) Existing law, until July 1, 2018, imposes a supplemental fee of $40 for filing any first paper subject to the uniform fee in certain civil proceedings, subject to reduction if the amount of the General Fund appropriation to the Trial Court Trust Fund is decreased from the amount appropriated in the 2013–14 fiscal year. This bill would extend the operation of the supplemental fee until July 1, 2023. (6) Existing law, until July 1, 2018, requires a $1,000 fee to be paid on behalf of all plaintiffs, and by each defendant, intervenor, respondent, or adverse party to a civil action that is designated or determined to be a complex case. On and after July 1, 2018, existing law requires a fee of $550 to be paid under those circumstances. Existing law, until July 1, 2018, imposes a limitation of $18,000 on the total amount of complex fees collected from all defendants, intervenors, respondents, or other adverse parties appearing in a complex case. On and after July 1, 2018, existing law imposes a limitation of $10,000 on the amount of the fee required to be paid in those circumstances. This bill would extend the operation of the $1,000 complex case fee and the $18,000 total fee limitation to July 1, 2023, thereby extending that higher fee rate and limitation until that date. (7) Under existing law, the uniform fee for filing any specified motion, application, order to show cause, or any other paper requiring a hearing subsequent to the first paper is $60 until July 1, 2018, at which time that fee is reduced to $40. This bill would extend the operation of the $60 filing fee to July 1, 2023, thereby extending that higher fee until that date. (8) Under existing law, until January 1, 2018, the filing fee for a request for special notice is $40. This bill would extend the operation of that filing fee to January 1, 2024. (9) Existing law establishes procedures for adjudicating traffic violations. Under existing law, the court may provide for the trial of any alleged infraction involving a violation of the Vehicle Code, or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to that code, and the court is required to provide that the defendant may elect to have a trial by written declaration upon any of these alleged infractions. This bill would, until June 30, 2022, require the Judicial Council to sponsor a pilot program to facilitate online adjudication of infraction violations of the Vehicle Code for which a personal appearance is not required. The bill would require the council to seek to select at least 8 courts that are willing to participate in the program. The bill would require the program to offer online adjudication of traffic infractions, including, among other things, an ability-to-pay determination. The bill would authorize the pilot court, among other dispositions, to waive, reduce, or suspend the amount due, in whole or in part, extend the time for payment or establish an installment plan, or allow community service in lieu of the amount due, as specified. The bill would establish procedures for determining a defendant's ability to pay. The bill would require the Judicial Council to submit a report on the implementation of the pilot program to the Legislature on January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021, and to submit an evaluation of the program to the Legislature no later than June 30, 2022. (10) This bill would appropriate $4,000,000 from the General Fund to the Judicial Council, for transfer by the Controller to the Trial Court Trust Fund, to further the effort to expand interpreter services into all civil proceedings, as specified. (11) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Who sponsors AB 1813?
AB 1813 is sponsored by Committee on Budget.
What is the current status of AB 1813?
This bill died with 2017-2018 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 1813?
Track AB 1813 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1813

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 1813

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →