California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 2244 — Court fees: electronic filing.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 461, Statutes of 2016.

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 18, 2016. 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 8 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 authorizes the electronic service of documents in accordance with uniform rules adopted by the Judicial Council, as specified. Upon Judicial Council adoption of the uniform rules, existing law authorizes a superior court, by local rule, to require mandatory electronic filing and service of documents for specified civil actions in accordance with certain requirements including a requirement that any fees charged by the court do not exceed the actual cost of electronic filing and service of documents. This bill would add the additional requirement that a fee to process a payment that is charged by the court, an electronic filing manager, or an electronic filing service provider, does not exceed the actual costs incurred for processing the payment. The bill would require waiver of fees to process a payment if the court deems waiver appropriate. Existing law authorizes a court, subject to Judicial Council approval, to accept a credit card, debit card, or electronic funds transfer in payment of designated obligations, including filing fees and other court costs. Existing law authorizes a court, subject to Judicial Council approval, to impose a fee for the use of a credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer, not to exceed the costs incurred by the court in providing for payment by credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer. This bill would additionally authorize an agent of the court to impose a fee, subject to Judicial Council approval, for the use of a credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer, not to exceed the costs incurred by the court in providing for payment by credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer. For purposes of this provision, the bill would deem an electronic filing service provider who is required to collect and remit a filing fee or other court fee to complete an electronic filing transaction to be an agent of the court solely for that purpose, except as otherwise specified. The bill would require an agent of the court to report its costs in providing for payment by credit or debit card, or electronic funds transfer, as specified, and would require the agent to provide the Judicial Council, or its authorized representative, with access to examine the records and documents of the agency for purposes of verifying report accuracy and compliance with certain requirements. The bill would prohibit an electronic filing service provider from collecting or attempting to collect a fee to complete an electronic filing transaction from a party who is exempt from paying fees but would still require the electronic filing service provider to complete the filing. The bill would require a court, or certain electronic file managers, to accept more than one method of payment from an electronic filing service provider, as specified. Existing law also enumerates costs that a prevailing party may recover in a civil action. This bill would authorize a prevailing party to recover fees for the electronic filing or service of documents, or fees for the hosting of electronic documents, charged by an electronic filing service provider, if the court orders or requires electronic filing, service, or hosting of documents.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 461, Statutes of 2016.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 6113.).

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 18 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 36. Noes 1. Page 5031.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 11).

  9. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  10. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  12. Referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  14. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 4787.)

  15. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

  16. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 20. Noes 0.) (May 4).

  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 12).

  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 20.

  24. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Gatto · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Gatto

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 2244 GATTO Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 79 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 69001
Democratic 5000
Republican 5000
Total 79001
% of votes cast 99%0%0%1%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Brown — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Levine — Yea
Low — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Burke — Yea
Salas — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Harper — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Linder — Yea
Mayes — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Weber — Yea
Williams — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Holden — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Gray — Not Voting
Kim — Yea
Medina — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chang — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Hadley — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 36 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 34002
Democratic 2100
Total 36102
% of votes cast 92%3%0%5%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Allen — Yea
Glazer — Yea
De León — Yea
Hall — Yea
Mitchell — Not Voting
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Pan — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Not Voting
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Hill — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 2244 GATTO Consent Calendar Second Day

Passed 78 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 68002
Democratic 5000
Republican 5000
Total 78002
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Brown — Yea
Kim — Yea
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Medina — Yea
Mullin — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Not Voting
Burke — Not Voting
Santiago — Yea
Ting — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chang — Yea
Salas — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Chau — Yea
Harper — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Linder — Yea
Low — Yea
Gray — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Chu — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Weber — Yea
Williams — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Hadley — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass. To Consent Calendar.

Passed 20 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 16000
Democratic 2000
Republican 2000
Total 20000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (20)
Member Party Vote
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Holden — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Chang — Yea
Daly — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

finance technology
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 2244 do?
Existing law authorizes the electronic service of documents in accordance with uniform rules adopted by the Judicial Council, as specified. Upon Judicial Council adoption of the uniform rules, existing law authorizes a superior court, by local rule, to require mandatory electronic filing and service of documents for specified civil actions in accordance with certain requirements including a requirement that any fees charged by the court do not exceed the actual cost of electronic filing and service of documents. This bill would add the additional requirement that a fee to process a payment that is charged by the court, an electronic filing manager, or an electronic filing service provider, does not exceed the actual costs incurred for processing the payment. The bill would require waiver of fees to process a payment if the court deems waiver appropriate. Existing law authorizes a court, subject to Judicial Council approval, to accept a credit card, debit card, or electronic funds transfer in payment of designated obligations, including filing fees and other court costs. Existing law authorizes a court, subject to Judicial Council approval, to impose a fee for the use of a credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer, not to exceed the costs incurred by the court in providing for payment by credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer. This bill would additionally authorize an agent of the court to impose a fee, subject to Judicial Council approval, for the use of a credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer, not to exceed the costs incurred by the court in providing for payment by credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer. For purposes of this provision, the bill would deem an electronic filing service provider who is required to collect and remit a filing fee or other court fee to complete an electronic filing transaction to be an agent of the court solely for that purpose, except as otherwise specified. The bill would require an agent of the court to report its costs in providing for payment by credit or debit card, or electronic funds transfer, as specified, and would require the agent to provide the Judicial Council, or its authorized representative, with access to examine the records and documents of the agency for purposes of verifying report accuracy and compliance with certain requirements. The bill would prohibit an electronic filing service provider from collecting or attempting to collect a fee to complete an electronic filing transaction from a party who is exempt from paying fees but would still require the electronic filing service provider to complete the filing. The bill would require a court, or certain electronic file managers, to accept more than one method of payment from an electronic filing service provider, as specified. Existing law also enumerates costs that a prevailing party may recover in a civil action. This bill would authorize a prevailing party to recover fees for the electronic filing or service of documents, or fees for the hosting of electronic documents, charged by an electronic filing service provider, if the court orders or requires electronic filing, service, or hosting of documents.
Who sponsors AB 2244?
AB 2244 is sponsored by Gatto.
What is the current status of AB 2244?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2016. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 2244?
Track AB 2244 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2244

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 2244

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →