California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 2570 — False Claims Act.

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

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

This bill died with 2019-2020 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

Existing law, the False Claims Act, provides that any person who commits specified acts, including, but not limited to, knowingly presenting a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval or knowingly making or using a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, is liable to the state or to the political subdivision for 3 times the amount of damages that the state or political subdivision sustained because of the act and for the costs of a civil action brought to recover any penalties or damages, and is subject to a civil penalty. That act requires the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority of a political subdivision to diligently investigate violations of those specific acts involving state funds or political subdivision funds, respectively, and authorizes the Attorney General, the prosecuting authority, or a qui tam plaintiff to bring a civil action against a person who commits those acts. The False Claims Act requires a complaint filed by a qui tam plaintiff to be filed in superior court in camera and allows the complaint to remain under seal for up to 60 days to allow for the Attorney General or prosecuting attorney to elect to intervene and proceed with the action or to decline to proceed, as specified. The act prohibits service to be made on the defendant until after the complaint is unsealed. This bill, with respect to whether a false record or statement is material, would require that the materiality test focus on the potential effect of the false record or statement when it is made. This bill would specify that the amount of damages, as described above, include consequential damages. The bill would state that these changes are declaratory of existing law. This bill would require a complaint filed by a qui tam plaintiff to remain under seal for at least 60 days, and would prohibit the complaint being served on the defendant until the court so orders. The bill would deem a demand for payment or request for payment based on an alleged violation that is made prior to filing a complaint by an attorney representing a private person to be a violation of the requirement that the complaint be filed in superior court in camera. The False Claims Act does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. This bill would apply the False Claims Act to apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code if specified conditions are met, including if damages pleaded in an action under the act exceed $200,000 and that the claim, record, or statement was made on or after January 1, 2021. The bill would define "person" for these purposes. This bill would require the Attorney General or prosecuting authority, as described, to consult with the taxing authorities to whom the claim was submitted prior to filing or intervening in any action under the act that is based on the filing of false claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. This bill would authorize the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority, but not the qui tam plaintiff, to obtain otherwise confidential records relating to taxes, fees, or other obligations under the Revenue and Taxation Code. The bill would prohibit the disclosure of federal tax information to the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority without authorization from the Internal Revenue Service. The bill would require that any such information obtained be kept confidential, except as necessary to investigate and prosecute violations of these provisions. Under the False Claims Act, an employee, contractor, or agent who is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of their employment for engaging in lawful acts, as specified, or other efforts to stop violations of the act, is entitled to all relief necessary to make them whole. This bill would specify that the relief described above applies to any current or former employee, contractor, or agent if these parties are otherwise harmed or penalized by an employer. This bill would define lawful acts to include specified acts that may violate a contract, employment term, or duty owed to an employer or contractor. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Bill Text

Action History

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

  2. Referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  4. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 44. Noes 20. Page 4768.)

  5. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  6. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 5.) (June 3).

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

  8. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (May 11). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  9. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  11. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  12. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and REV. & TAX.

  13. From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

  14. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 8 voted No

Sponsors (1)

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

Passed 44 Yea · 20 Nay · 15 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 15205
Unaffiliated 291309
Republican 0501
Total 4420015
% of votes cast 56%25%0%19%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Brough — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Weber — Yea
Rendon — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Low — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Burke — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Levine — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Medina — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Wood — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Ting — Yea
Chau — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Kiley — Nay
Diep — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Daly — Nay
Fong — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Cunningham — Nay
Voepel — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Frazier — Nay
Obernolte — Nay
Mayes — Nay
Cooley — Not Voting
Maienschein — Not Voting
O'Donnell — Not Voting
Rodriguez — Not Voting
Salas — Not Voting
Quirk — Not Voting
Cooper — Not Voting
Smith — Not Voting
Gray — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Not Voting
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Nay
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Not Voting
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Nay
Ramos, James C. Democratic Not Voting
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Not Voting
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 13 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 6000
Unaffiliated 7400
Republican 0100
Total 13500
% of votes cast 72%28%0%0%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
McCarty — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Fong — Nay
Voepel — Nay
Diep — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 7 Yea · 3 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 2000
Unaffiliated 5201
Republican 0100
Total 7301
% of votes cast 64%27%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Obernolte — Nay
Kiley — Nay
Maienschein — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 2570 do?
Existing law, the False Claims Act, provides that any person who commits specified acts, including, but not limited to, knowingly presenting a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval or knowingly making or using a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, is liable to the state or to the political subdivision for 3 times the amount of damages that the state or political subdivision sustained because of the act and for the costs of a civil action brought to recover any penalties or damages, and is subject to a civil penalty. That act requires the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority of a political subdivision to diligently investigate violations of those specific acts involving state funds or political subdivision funds, respectively, and authorizes the Attorney General, the prosecuting authority, or a qui tam plaintiff to bring a civil action against a person who commits those acts. The False Claims Act requires a complaint filed by a qui tam plaintiff to be filed in superior court in camera and allows the complaint to remain under seal for up to 60 days to allow for the Attorney General or prosecuting attorney to elect to intervene and proceed with the action or to decline to proceed, as specified. The act prohibits service to be made on the defendant until after the complaint is unsealed. This bill, with respect to whether a false record or statement is material, would require that the materiality test focus on the potential effect of the false record or statement when it is made. This bill would specify that the amount of damages, as described above, include consequential damages. The bill would state that these changes are declaratory of existing law. This bill would require a complaint filed by a qui tam plaintiff to remain under seal for at least 60 days, and would prohibit the complaint being served on the defendant until the court so orders. The bill would deem a demand for payment or request for payment based on an alleged violation that is made prior to filing a complaint by an attorney representing a private person to be a violation of the requirement that the complaint be filed in superior court in camera. The False Claims Act does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. This bill would apply the False Claims Act to apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code if specified conditions are met, including if damages pleaded in an action under the act exceed $200,000 and that the claim, record, or statement was made on or after January 1, 2021. The bill would define "person" for these purposes. This bill would require the Attorney General or prosecuting authority, as described, to consult with the taxing authorities to whom the claim was submitted prior to filing or intervening in any action under the act that is based on the filing of false claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. This bill would authorize the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority, but not the qui tam plaintiff, to obtain otherwise confidential records relating to taxes, fees, or other obligations under the Revenue and Taxation Code. The bill would prohibit the disclosure of federal tax information to the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority without authorization from the Internal Revenue Service. The bill would require that any such information obtained be kept confidential, except as necessary to investigate and prosecute violations of these provisions. Under the False Claims Act, an employee, contractor, or agent who is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of their employment for engaging in lawful acts, as specified, or other efforts to stop violations of the act, is entitled to all relief necessary to make them whole. This bill would specify that the relief described above applies to any current or former employee, contractor, or agent if these parties are otherwise harmed or penalized by an employer. This bill would define lawful acts to include specified acts that may violate a contract, employment term, or duty owed to an employer or contractor. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Who sponsors AB 2570?
AB 2570 is sponsored by Mark Stone.
What is the current status of AB 2570?
This bill died with 2019-2020 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 2570?
Track AB 2570 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2570

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.

Stay ahead of AB 2570

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →