March 24, 2026 · Judiciary · 14,851 words · 24 speakers · 301 segments
. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Good morning. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda, allow everyone equal time. The rules for witness testimony are at each side. It will be allowed two main witnesses each. Witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the bill. Additional witnesses should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the bill. I'm going to wait a couple minutes, And if we don't have any authors in the next 90 seconds, I'll say, I'm going to go up and start sending my bills. Is that a good idea? Assemblymember Stephanie? Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. We do not have a quorum but we will begin with our first bill
Mr. Chair is Assembly Bill 2305.
Please.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill. A tough committee, but fair. AB 2305 directly prohibits corporate investors from controlling or interfering with litigation decisions. The principle is simple. When you hire a lawyer, the person making decisions about your case should be your lawyer, not a private equity investor looking for profit. Until recently, the legal industry is one of the last industries not to take private equity investment because of longstanding ethic rules prohibiting non-lawyer ownership. However, models like management service organizations and alternative business structures have allowed investors to profit from legal services without technically taking ownership in the firm, while potentially exerting financial or operational influence. To mitigate this growing risk, the legislature passed a bill I wrote last year, AB 931, to reinforce California's prohibition on fee sharing with alternative business structures. Despite these guardrails, private equity has continued to find loopholes by creatively restructuring its involvement with the legal industry, such as classifying its investment as a loan to sidestep existing law. Consequently, this risks litigation decisions, including whether to file a case, how to resolve the case, or to pursue a particular strategy, being influenced by investor return expectations rather than putting the interests of injured individuals or consumers first. For example, aggressive loan repayment timelines could lead to firms needing to encourage clients to settle cases prematurely and for lower settlement amounts. In response, AB 2305 takes a broader approach and blanket prohibits private equity firms, hedge funds, and other corporate investors from directing or influencing the practice of law. This bill is modeled after SB 351 from Senator Cabaldon from last year, which was enacted to similarly rein in private equity in the medical profession. In doing so, AB 2305 ensures that the decisions about litigation, including case strategy, resolution, and representation, remain solely in the hands of licensed attorneys and their clients, rather than the investors, regardless of how ownership is structured. Access to justice means more than having the right to file a lawsuit. It means having an attorney whose only obligation is what is in the best interest of the client. With me to testify in support is Casey Johnson, President-elect of the Consumer Attorneys of California.
Please proceed. Thank you.
While California law already prohibits non-lawyer ownership and fee sharing, investors are increasingly using complex arrangements, like management service organizations, to exert indirect influence over legal decision-making. This creates a real risk that decisions about whether to file a case, how to litigate, or when to settle are driven by financial return rather than the client's best interests. AB 2305 is a necessary next step to prior bills CSC has worked on and which have been enacted like AB 931 with Share Collar last year AB 2305 closes any remaining loopholes by clearly prohibiting any corporate influence over legal decisions voiding contracts that allow that influence and providing meaningful enforcement. This bill seeks to enact the same principles applied to medicine last year with Senator Calbadon's SB 351. Professional judgment must remain independent when people's rights and well-being are at stake. AB 2305 ensures that our justice system remains client-centered, ethical, and free from outside financial control. We have been and will continue to work with the State Bar to ensure their concerns are addressed. For all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Do we have any speakers in support of AB 2305?
Madam Chair and members, Mike Belote, representing California Defense Council, pleased to offer our support to the author and sponsors.
Good morning. Nancy Pevrini on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys, also in support, the Alameda Contra Costa Trial Lawyers Association, Capital City Trial Lawyers Association, Central Valley Trial Lawyers Association, Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, Consumer Attorneys of Inland Empire, and the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association, and finally the San Mateo County Trial Lawyers Association. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other speakers in support? Any speakers?
Madam Chair, prior to this morning's hearing, unusual but not unprecedented opportunity if the chair would allow for a support with the men's presentation from CJAC.
Oh, sure. Come to the table. Absolutely.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Chair and members. Annalee Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We are in a support if amended position. We sincerely thank Chair Calra for authoring the measure and the sponsors for their willingness to discuss this very important issue. We all agree that third party litigation funding has been and continues to be an increasing problem. C-Jack agrees that ensuring outside investors do not control or improperly influence litigation is imperative and have worked for years to advocate for increased transparency in this space. We believe strongly that amending the bill to add a third-party funding disclosure requirement would strengthen the desired protections of this policy. We are very committed to working with the author and sponsors on amendments to advance our shared goals here. Thank you again for this discussion and your willingness to address the issues that surround lawsuit loan sharking.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Any comments in opposition, please come forward to the microphone or come to the table if you're the primary witness. In opposition, seeing none. Any speakers in opposition? Seeing none, we'll come back to the table. Any questions? Great bill. I'd love to be added as a co-author. Thank you.
Yes. Thank you, Chair. Love this bill. Would love to be added as a co-author as well.
Thank you.
I have a question on the right of action. Is that what you were trying to get at in terms of other enforcement mechanisms?
We're actually, the desired amendments here would be disclosure and transparency around the third party funding.
So we don't have comments as the added PRA at this time.
No.
I wish we didn't have to have private right of action. Is that the only way we can enforce? I support the bill Is there any other way to have an enforcement mechanism other than I think it the preferred way to ensure that there meaningful enforcement
Yeah, I see that. All right. Well, we cannot vote. Yeah, we're almost there. But thank you very much. Appreciate. We'll hold it, I guess.
Well, yeah, make a closing comment. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Sheriff. I wanted to thank our sponsors for their work on this, not just this, but a number of measures in order to really focus on the integrity of the legal practice. I want to thank CJAC for their, not just cooperation, but support and continued work. I think that we all agree with the goal here, and I think there's some technical things we can do on transparency that I'm confident we'll arrive at agreement on. And I want to thank the member Zabir, who I know is also working on legislation in this space. I think it's very important that we have a civil legal system that we can really be confident in its integrity. And so I think that a number of these measures go towards that aim. And at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
And I agree with every word you just said. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Up next, we have item 2, AB 2115, Ramos. I believe these, yeah, Assemblyman Ramos, thank you. Whenever you're situated and ready, sir,
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. It represents an official apology from the state of California to California's first people, acknowledging the state's legislature's role in historic injustices and atrocities committed against the state's native communities and affirming its commitment to healing and reconciliation. The bill also serves as an apology from the state courts for their participation and failure to prevent the systematic discrimination and violence experienced by California's first people. California joined the union in 1850, and the state legislature has yet to officially apologize for its own role in the early wars and massacres waged against California Native American people. Between 1851 and 1859, the state racked up millions of dollars waging a war against tribes. These were taxpayers' dollars used to eliminate the California Indian people of their lands. Legislation was enacted to destroy tribal nations all throughout the state, wiping out entire communities and condemning generations to a future marked by profound pain and suffering. In 1852, the legislature deliberately voted to oppose the ratification of 1852, 18 treaties negotiated between the United States government and California tribes, agreements that would have secured tribal homelands and guaranteed basic rights and protections to many Native people. In 1860, the members of a select committee investigated the Mendocino Wars, called out for the outright takeover of tribal affairs by the state government, and called for the enslavement of the remaining natives of this state by so-called responsible citizens. This history of violence against California's first people created deep and lasting trauma that continues to affect Native American communities across our state today. Although the governor issued an apology on behalf of the state in 2019, this body, this institution, which enacted laws that facilitated the removal and destruction of Native communities, has never issued its own apology for its direct role in these injustices. While we can never undo the wrongs of the past, the state has a responsibility to confront them with honesty. That is why I introduced AB 2115. This bill intends to be an acknowledgement of the harms that were committed and affirms the state's commitment to ensuring such injustices never occur again. Mr. Chair and members, I recognize that this legislature has made meaningful progress in addressing historic inequities, but without an official acknowledgement of wrongdoing and a formal apology from this body, we risk becoming complacent in silence that has persisted for more than 170 years. That is why this bill will serve as a clear condemnation of the actions once taken by former members of the Assembly and Senate against California's first people. It's also a commitment to building a better and a more just future for all Native people who call the state home. California is home to the largest population of Native American and Alaska Native people in the nation. Yet we also rank among the highest in the number of uninvestigated or unresolved cases of missing and murdered Indigenous people. However, this has been a direct consequence of generations of state-sanctioned neglect and policies that marginalized Native communities for years, laws that have failed to protect Native women and girls and ignored the violence that has disproportionately affected Indigenous people across California. This is unacceptable. It is not justice, and we must do more to prevent violence and protect Native lives. AB 2115 acknowledges the legislative actions and failures that inflict profound pain and suffering on California's first people, while also honoring their survival and the resiliency of tribal communities. The bill further requests that a plaque commemorating this apology be created and installed at the state capitol, serving as a permanent reminder of this historic acknowledgement. Joining me today is Chairman Kenneth Kahn of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians to provide testimony on the importance of this apology. Thank you.
Chair and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Kenneth Kahn and I am the Tribal Chairman for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians I appear here today on behalf of my tribe in strong support of AB 2115 authored by Assemblyman James Ramos AB 2115 represents a necessary and overdue acknowledgement by the California legislature of its role in the historical mistreatment of California Native Americans. Since California's admission to the Union in 1850, the state enacted and enforced laws that enabled violence against tribal communities, stripped Native people of basic civil protections, and made the survival of many tribes extraordinarily difficult. For tribes like the Chumash, whose ancestral homelands span the Central Coast, these policies were not abstract or distant. They resulted in dispossession from tribal traditional lands, the erosion of cultural practices, and generational trauma that continues to affect our people today. These harms were the direct result of state-sanctioned policies adopted and maintained during California's early history. In 2019, Governor Newsom took an important step by issuing an apology on behalf of the executive branch and establishing the Truth and Healing Council. But as AB 2115 correctly recognizes the violence and discrimination inflicted upon Native communities, we're not confined to executive action alone. The legislature itself promoted and permitted policies that cause profound and lasting harm. AB 2115 acknowledges the truth by issuing a formal legislative apology and memorializing it with a plaque in the state capitol. This bill affirms responsibility, promotes healing, and signals that California is prepared to engage in honest, respectful government-to-government relationships with tribal nations. This acknowledgment is not only about the past, it lays the foundation for stronger partnerships today in areas like economic development, environmental stewardship, and cultural preservation. The impacts of those policies are not confined to history books, but are reflected in the lived experiences of our elders and the challenges still faced by our communities. At a time when California is working more closely than ever with tribal governments, it is both appropriate and necessary that the legislature formally recognizes its role in this history. For the Sandinus Band of Chumash Indians and for tribes across California, reconciliation must begin with acknowledgement, and it must be affirmed by all branches of government. We respectfully urge a yes vote on AB 2115.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2115?
Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Frank Molina on behalf of the Yohavitam Band of San Manuel Nation. Thank you in support.
Thank you.
Chair and members, Andrew Governor on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in support.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair and members, Mike Belote on behalf of UC Law SF. We were proud to work with Mr. Ramos and the legislature to rename the school because of the very history that Mr. Ramos articulated.
Thank you.
Morning, Mr. Chair and members. Alex Alaniz on behalf of the Habumatul Pomo of Upper Lake in support.
Thank you.
Good morning. Cesar Gonzalez Garcia with the California Rural Indian Health Board, and we support this bill.
Thank you. At this time is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2115 At this time I ask if our secretary could please call the roll Kalra?
Here.
Macedo, Barakahan, Ryan, Connolly?
Here.
Dixon?
Here.
Harabedian?
Here.
Pacheco?
Here.
Pappin, Sanchez?
Here.
Stephanie? Here. Zabir? Quorum is established. Any questions? Assemblymember Harabedian.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author. Please add me as a co-author. Great to see you, Mr. Khan. Thank you for the testimony. I think this bill is long overdue and appreciate you bringing it. So I'll move the bill.
Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Stephanie. Thank you. Yes, I too want to acknowledge my support for this bill. And thank you, Assemblymember Ramos, for bringing it. I think that making amends, apologizing, learning from our behavior so as not to repeat it again is a path we should all be on, not only here, but in our personal lives. And this is an apology that is long overdue. And what you've mentioned in terms of how Native American women or California indigenous people are missing at a rate that is higher than most is an absolute. It's something that we have to address and be thinking about every day. And I thank you for bringing that up again today. And I would like to be added as the co-author. So thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Dixon.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I join the chorus of supporters and appreciate what you're doing, Assemblymember, to bring righteous justice to our first Californians and Native Americans. I am in support of the bill, of course. A couple questions. Just more curiously, the plaque, $500,000, is this going to be a plaque on a wall, or do you envision something more major? I just want to see this get through, and I don't know if it will through appropriations. I just want to make sure. I don't know what you envision, number one. And then curiously, number two, I think this is important for the state of California to do it, and you cite the reasons, and certainly California in those early years is not the only state that had these issues with our first Americans. Are other states doing this? Have they done it? Are we late? Are we early? just more commentary on the rest of the country.
Through the chair.
Thank you for the questions, comments. As far as, you know, talking about other states, I'm not so sure, but I do know here in the state of California, it's long and overdue. Getting to the plat component, we did move a bill early on in my legislature in the tenure here for the monument on the park, and we kept all options open. So those are things that would be discussed within approach.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
And please add my name also. Thank you.
Assemblymember Pacheco.
Thank you. And I also want to thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. It is long overdue, and I would love to be added as a co-author. Thank you so much.
Assemblymember Connolly.
Please add me as well.
Any other questions or comments? I want to first just thank the author, not just for this legislation, but for his fierce and admirable advocacy on behalf of the Native American community throughout your tenure, even before that, before you arrived here in Sacramento. It's truly commendable. And you know I really appreciate the fact that we certainly grateful to the governor for his apology But I think it correctly stated the legislature played an equal if not greater than equal role in the actual actions and atrocities of this state And we are the legislature and we cannot turn a blind eye to that. and I'll just you know I know I've mentioned this before and I just want to mention publicly publicly again because you know we had a school in San Jose a middle school we changed from Peter Burnett to Ohlone to Muwekma Ohlone Middle School and you know it kind of burns me every time I see that picture that painting or portrait downstairs without context but you know I think that we have to be more than a glorified museum if we're going to be putting up paintings of people and if we're not going to take them down, at least offer context as to who they were and what damage they caused. And so I'll just put that out there. I don't want to platform that guy too much today because this is actually a very important action that you're asking us to take that should be celebrated. And I would also like to be added as a co-author. Would you like to close, sir?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. and certainly this brings up a lot of the issues that the legislature has been dealing with around Native American issues, missing and murdered Indigenous women, suicide prevention, mental health components. But to have an official apology from the state of California that used taxpayers' dollars to hunt and kill our people is a step in the right direction. It doesn't solve or heal everything, but it's a step in the right direction. And it's time that the legislature in the state of California, move forward with that apology. I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.
Motion is due passed to appropriations. Caller. Caller aye. Macedo, Barcahan, Ryan, Connelly. Aye. Connelly aye. Dixon. Dixon aye. Herabedian. Herabedian aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco aye. Pepin. Sanchez. Aye. Stephanie Zabur. Okay, so we'll place that on call. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right, we have, I think, we have Ms. Patel, Assemblymember Patel, AB 2179, which is item four. Whenever you're ready.
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I am here to present AB 2179, which expands e-filing of restraining orders to include workplace violence restraining orders, also known as WVROs. We have seen with e-filings and remote appearances that, as detailed in your analysis, submitting paperwork in person for an application can be inconvenient when they are facing pressing needs related to their restraining order. Bills such as AB 2960 in 2022 with gun violence and domestic violence restraining orders and AB 561 in 2025 with elder dependent adult protection orders have increased access and provided certainty to individuals that are facing some of the most difficult and stressful times of their lives. AB 2179 seeks to allow for that certainty for individuals facing workplace violence. with me is Sharon Gonsalves who is testifying on behalf of the City
of Carlsbad, one of our co-sponsors for this measure. Great. Thank you. Thank you. And good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the city of Carlsbad. We're pleased to co-sponsor this bill along with the San Diego County District Attorney and want to thank Assemblymember Patel for carrying this measure. AB 2179 would make workplace violence restraining order procedures match other civil restraining order types by requiring courts to accept electronic filings of petitions and related filings, as well as allow parties and witnesses to appear remotely at the hearing. As the committee analysis states, beginning in January of 2027, most restraining order types, including domestic violence, elder and dependent abuse, general civil harassment, restraining orders will all allow for electronic filings and remote appearances. Workplace violence restraining orders were not included in the previous authorizing legislation, and 2179 will close that gap. AB 2179, it's a common sense, narrowly tailored fix to ensure workplace violence restraining orders are as accessible, efficient, and safe as other protective orders. And I would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2179?
Sadia Khan, Family Violence Law Center, in strong support.
Thank you.
Good morning. Megan Loper on behalf of the California Hospital Association in support.
Thank you. Pat Espinoza on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office in strong support and also appearing for the California District Attorney's Association as well.
Thanks. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Engineers and Scientists of California, Unite Here, Utility Workers Union of America, and I believe I'm forgetting when I apologize to whoever that is, but also in support. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2179? We'll bring it back to committee. Assembly members of Burr.
So first of all, I want to thank the author. I think it's a great bill. It reminds me of meetings that I had with some of the members of Unite here in my district where they recounted stories about workplace violence that they were encountering. And so I think those were really heartbreaking stories that I heard. This was when I was running a couple years ago. And so this is a really important bill and just would love to be added as a co-author.
Yes, of course. Assemblymember Pacheco.
I would also love to be added as a co-author, and I'll make a motion. Thank you.
Okay. Any other questions or comments? I also want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward in addition to some of the comments made regarding your night here. Our ATU and transit workers went through a really tough time at VTA when there was a shooting there. And it's all too common. I think not just gun violence, but in general, you know, it could be stalking. It could be a lot of different scenarios at the workplace, which, you know, other than when you're at home is the place you're at the most. And people should certainly be able to feel safe there. So I think there's an important bill and I appreciate being forward. I'd also like to be added as a coauthor. Would you like to close?
Yes. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration members and respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.
Motions do pass to corporations. Caller. Aye. Caller. Aye. Macedo. Bauer-Cahan. Brian. Connelly.
Connelly.
Aye. Dixon.
Aye.
Dixon. Aye.
Harabedian.
Aye. Harabedian.
Aye.
Pacheco. Aye.
Pacheco.
Aye. Pappin. Sanchez Aye Sanchez Aye Stephanie Zabur Aye Zabur I All right That bill is out Thank you Thank you All right next item six AB 2323
Assemblymember McKinner.
Thank you. Oops. Takes a minute. Take your time.
Whenever you're ready, Assemblymember.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Morning.
Mr. Chair and members, AB 2323 seeks to modernize California's public notice system while preserving its role as a cornerstone of government transparency and due process. For decades, California has required legal notices to be published in independent newspapers of general circulation, creating a verified third-party record that ensures the public has reliable access to information about government actions, public hearings, and decisions that impact their communities. As more Californians turn to digital platforms for information, our public notice system must evolve, but it must do so without compromising access, equity, or legal integrity. AB 2323 responds to this need by maintaining print publication as the legal standard while also expanding access by requiring notice to be available online. This approach ensures that notices remain independently verified and legally sound, while also becoming more visible and accessible to the public. Additionally, public notice publications support smaller and culturally significant newspapers, including many that serve communities of color, which rely on these revenues to remain operational and to provide trusted information to their communities. AB 2323 builds on this existing framework by allowing newspapers to expand their digital presence without replacing or undermining the independent role they play in ensuring accountability. As this bill moves forward, I remain committed to working with stakeholders to ensure that implementation continues to preserve equitable access across all communities. This bill is about striking the right balance between modernization and accountability while protecting the public's right to know. So today's witness is none other than former Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown and Paul School Messenger Publishing Group.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Good morning, Chair.
Good morning.
It's so good to see you again. And Chair Macio, in her absence, members of the committee. It a privilege to be with you today to support 2323 AB 2323 As a former newspaper publisher owner journalist former member of this body as a matter of fact in this room many times and former chair of the Commission on Aging I bring both professional and personal experience to this issue I believe this bill strikes the right balance. It builds on the existing framework that supports due process while modernizing access in a thoughtful way without leaving behind the millions of seniors who still rely on print for their news and their information in their communities. For many years, I published the newspaper that serves San Bernardino and Riverside counties. It is and remains today a newspaper of general circulation that published notices for residents in Riverside County. I understand firsthand the importance of ensuring that communities are informed about government actions that impact their daily lives. Now in retirement, I rely on multiple ways to stay informed, whether it's the daily newspaper delivered to my home or black newspapers that I pick up each week at my church. These are not just sources of information. They are trusted connections to what's happening in my community. While digital access is increasingly important, I've learned that the best solutions are those that work across generations. This bill does that. It preserves the role of local newspapers in holding government accountable and informing residents, while also expanding access by making notices available on their websites. AB 2323 does that. It does not replace what works. It strengthens it. Thank you for your time. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I thank our author for this information and for this bill. Thank you.
Oh, I'm sorry. You can move it up close.
Hello, and good morning. My name is Paul Scholl. I'm the owner of Messenger Publishing Group, where we publish 11 adjudicated newspapers across six northern California counties in the Sacramento region. along with 10 additional independent community publications that we print at my printing company. I'm also a member of California Independent News Alliance. I'll get straight to the point. I support AB 2323 because it strikes the right balance. This bill strengthens transparency in government by ensuring public notices remain entrusted, verified newspapers, while also expanding access by allowing those notices to be posted online. This means more people, especially in the communities that we serve, can actually see and engage with this information. For publishers like me, this is about meeting people where they are today, without losing the integrity and accountability that newspapers of record provide the public. AB 2323 is a practical, forward-looking approach that respects both tradition and innovation. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2323?
Thank you Mr Chair and members Vanessa Kahina on behalf of the California News Publishers Association with the support of amended position Our concerns are outlined in the letter Having a repository does increase access but we really appreciate the work of the author and the sponsors on where we are and look forward to continuing this conversation
Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning. Regina Brown-Wilson, Executive Director of California Black Media, and we are in support.
I also just got a letter from the Latino Media Collaborative. They are also in support. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2323?
Good morning. Marcus Detweiler with the California Special Districts Association. We are respectfully opposed unless amended.
Thank you. Thank you. Right. Well, bringing it back to me, I just want to start by thanking and welcoming Assemblymember Brown. Great to have you back here. and thank you for continued advocacy on behalf of your community. Assemblymember Dixon?
I'd like to make a motion of support, and I'd like to be a co-author. And I do support that amendment. I appreciate that working forward, as you say, sir, to meet where everybody is. But I think because of the data repository opportunity, it just allows everybody to have a history and archival purposes. So I hope we can work that out. But thank you so much for making another attempt to keep newspapers alive online or in print. I'm still reading it in print, but I do read online as well. We have to have both. So thank you very much for doing the mail. I have to support it.
We have a motion. Do we have a second? A motion and a second. Any other questions or comments? Well, I want to thank the author and the fact that he has support if amended from the publisher. That's a great sign of movement and of conversation from the author, who I know has been engaging with our staff here, the committee staff, as well as with opposition. So I think the legislation is in a good place, and I look forward to seeing continued work on it. Would you like to close?
Yes. AB 2323 is really needed because as we look at what's happening online on the Internet, on our social media, we can't believe everything we see. And so it's tremendously important that we keep print news because it's factual. That's where our people can go and we can get the facts. And so I think this bill is very important. And I do agree we'll continue to work with the stakeholders.
I am also looking at the suppository. Is that what it's called?
Repository.
I probably said the wrong word.
Repository, excuse me. Repository.
That's for the health committee, I think. I'm looking at the repository. Well, we need to laugh this morning. That's good. because, and as I look at it, you know, there are certain organizations that can hold this, and I would be looking at the California black media. So thank you. Thank you so much. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass. Kalra?
Aye.
Kalra, aye. Macedo? Bauer-Cahan? Bryan? Connelly?
Aye.
Connelly, aye. Dixon?
Aye.
Dixon, aye. Harabedian?
Aye.
Harabedian, aye. Pacheco?
Aye.
Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Sanchez?
Aye.
Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Zabur?
Aye.
All right, the bill is out. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. And just for the record, item AB 2109, Senator Dixon's bill was pulled from consent. We will be hearing it at some point this morning. If we don't have any authors, we'll just go in order of committee members. Is Senator Zubra, are you prepared to present on AB 2039? And while we're doing that, do we have a motion on the consent calendar?
Yeah. Move the consent calendar.
Oh, yeah. There you go. A motion, a second.
Yeah.
On the consent calendar, please. Consent includes AB 1689, Quirk Silva to Human Services. AB 2199, Macedo to the floor. AB 2283, Jeff Gonzalez as amended to appropriations. AB 2290, Lackey to the floor. AB 2335, Valencia as amended to Banking and Finance. And AB 2542, Patterson to appropriations. Calra?
Aye.
Calra, aye. Macedo, Bauer-Cahan, Brian, Connolly?
Aye.
Connolly, aye. Dixon?
Aye.
Dixon, aye. Harabedian?
Aye.
Harabedian, aye. Pacheco?
Aye.
Pacheco, aye. Papin Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. Okay. That bill is out, and we'll go ahead with item one, AB 2039. Assembly member, whenever you're ready.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. I'm proud to present AB 2039, which will close loopholes in the existing law that bad attorneys exploit, protect victims, and preserve the integrity of the justice system. I want to thank the sponsor, Consumer Attorneys of California, for their work this year, focusing on assuring the integrity in our legal system and our legal profession. Access to justice depends on public trust in the legal profession. When attorneys exploit vulnerable people, paying runners to file fraudulent claims, lending money to clients in ways that create hidden conflicts, they don't just break the law. They undermine the credibility of every attorney fighting for injured Californians who have nowhere else to turn. And when bad actors erode trust in the system, real people lose access to justice and accountability. Recent reporting by the Los Angeles Times highlighted a wave of inappropriate attorney conduct, including allegations that attorneys paid recruiters to find clients and paid individuals to fabricate claims and become their clients. Unethical conduct results in claims being brought that are false or fraudulent, which not only undermines our justice system, but it also denies real victims their day in court by wasting the time and resources that should go to real cases. AB 2039 closes three specific enforcement gaps that allow misconduct to go undisciplined. First, the bill requires mandatory summary disbarment when attorneys are convicted of felony capping or illegally soliciting clients and misdemeanor convictions involving knowing financial gain. Second, this bill prohibits termination, harassment, blacklisting, or other retaliation against people inside firms who report misconduct. And finally, this bill requires clear, separate attorney-client loan agreements with no hidden fees or interest, an informed consent process, and a cool-down period before signing. Together, these reforms will help ensure that attorneys are held accountable for misconduct and will reduce the number of fraudulent cases that take up time and resources in California's courts. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time, and with me today is Casey Johnson, President-elect of the Consumer Attorneys of California, who is the sponsor of the bill. And as a member, you do accept the committee amendments? I do accept the committee amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Please. Good morning, Mr.
Chair and members. Casey Johnson, President-elect of the Consumer Attorneys of California. I'm also a partner at the law firm of Aiken Aiken & Cone in Orange County, California, and I'm here in strong support of AB 2039 This bill is about protecting consumers and restoring trust in our legal system Right now California already has laws against serious attorney misconduct like illegal client solicitation known as capping and unethical financial arrangements with clients But the reality is these laws are not being forced consistently. As a result, bad actors can exploit vulnerable clients, people who are often dealing with injuries, financial hardship, or crises, and face uneven consequences. We've also seen that people who try to report misconduct, risk retaliation, including losing their jobs or being pushed out of the profession. That creates a culture where wrongdoing can continue unchecked. AB 2039 addresses these gaps with free reforms. First, it creates clear mandatory consequences for illegal client solicitation schemes. If an attorney is convicted of this misconduct, they will be disbarred. No loopholes, no inconsistent discipline. Second, it protects whistleblowers so employees, colleagues, and others can report misconduct without fear of retaliation. And third, it prevents financial exploitation by banning attorneys from charging interest or hidden fees on loans or advances to their own clients, ensuring these arrangements don't erode a client's recovery. Together, these reforms strengthen accountability and ensure that law is applied fairly and consistently. This bill is about making sure legal decisions are based on what's best for the client, not financial incentives or unethical practices. It protects vulnerable Californians and supports the many ethical attorneys who already follow the rules. AB 2039 strengthens consumer protections and upholds the integrity of our legal system. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2039?
Mr. Chair and members, Mike Belote speaking on behalf of the California Defense Council in support.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair and members. Jackie Seren on behalf of the Capital City Trial Lawyers Association, the Alameda Contra Costa Trial Lawyers Association, the Central Valley Trial Lawyers Association, the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association, and the San Mateo County Trial Lawyers Association.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Caller and members. Annalie Augustine, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, we appreciate Assemblymember Sabur very much for authoring this measure and sponsors for the discussion. We are in a support if amended position again here as we support efforts to enhance accountability in the legal system. However, we have some concerns about the effectiveness of enforcement dependent on actions by the state bar. So we would support amendments that would add independent oversight of the state bar's disciplinary system and clear timelines and thresholds for complaint investigations. Also, we think that further safeguards could help strengthen the bill. We're very committed to working with author and sponsors and appropriate stakeholders when appropriate. Thank you so much for this discussion.
Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2039? We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? We have a motion. Is there a second? And a second. Any other questions or comments?
I want to commend the author, as I mentioned when I presented my bill. So, you know, there's a lot of work being done in this space appropriately. So these are incredibly meaningful measures. I really appreciate the whistleblower protection. I think that protecting employees, just like any other workplace, can be pretty intimidating to step up if it's a partner or what have you. We want to make sure those protections are codified and meaningful. and I appreciate the sponsors for taking these issues so seriously and offering a number of measures over the last couple years again to increase accountability and integrity in the legal system And I thank CJAC for coming forward I think that sometimes there agreement or disagreement on different issues, but it's very good to see that there's a general consensus and agreement that all of us need to see what we can do more and better in terms of accountability in our civil justice system. And so I think this bill is really important. I'd like to be added as a co-author.
And, oh yeah, of course, Senator Dickson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly support this bill. I'd like to be added as a co-author. The comment from CJAC, I hope you're working together with them because I think that enforcement and transparency and outside oversight, I think, would be helpful. So thank you very much.
Good bill. Thank you. And I know our Assemblymember Dixon, just like all of us, also have a lot of thoughts about the State Bar. And so we'll certainly continue to work with the State Bar to make sure that there's meaningful oversight and, if necessary, take action where we feel necessary. Would you like to close?
No, I appreciate the comments from CJEC. Obviously, their comments raise broader issues with respect to the state bar that, you know, have effects on more than just this bill. So obviously, we will continue working with them. I want to thank the consumer attorneys of California again for being proactive in a number of bills, including yours, Mr. Chair, to really assure integrity in our legal profession. It really is, and in our system, it's really important for our system and people having confidence in it. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Thank you. Motions do pass as amended. Kalra?
Aye.
Kalra, aye. Macedo, Barra-Cahan, Brian, Connelly?
Aye.
Connelly, aye. Dixon?
Aye.
Dixon, aye. Harabedian?
Aye.
Harabedian, aye. Pacheco?
Aye.
Pacheco, aye. Papin?
Sanchez?
Aye. Sanchez, aye.
Stephanie?
Zibber?
Aye.
Zibber, aye. That's all. All right. That bill's out. Thank you. We have three more bills remaining. I have a bill and Assemblymember Dixon has a bill as well as Assemblymember Bennett. I'll ask Assemblymember Dixon if she'd like to present item 9, AB 2109. All right.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Thank you. Can you hear me okay?
Yes.
Before I begin, I want to thank the committee for their diligent work and with my office on this bill, especially for their open communication and expertise. AB 2109 is a simple piece of legislation to require the California State Bar to adopt the National Conference of Bar Examiners Universal Bar Exam or any successor or replacement to that exam that is currently in process. This legislation has stemmed from the well-known disastrous administration of the February 2025 bar exam. In 2024, California rejected the adoption of the National Conference of Bar Examiners Multi-State Bar Exam in favor of developing its own exam alongside Kaplan North America. The primary reason for this choice was the ability to administer a hybrid exam and cut costs to the state bar The development of the exam was then fast alongside Kaplan ultimately culminating in the debacle that was the February 2025 exam As many of us on this committee know the February 2025 exam was an unmitigated disaster Test takers faced numerous issues, including constant computer crashes, inability to connect to the online testing platform, inability to save essays, poorly worded AI questions, screen legs, consistent error messages, and more. As a result of these issues, the State Bar spent 2025 preparing retake exams and new in-person testing locations for affected students, in addition to scoring changes that allowed test takers to pass with lower scores. There was also an ongoing lawsuit against Measure Learning who helped administer the online exam. It has been learned through discovery that measure itself questioned its ability to successfully roll out the online exam, but still move forward without warning the state bar. As a final point of concern, we have learned that 23 of the 171 multiple choice questions on the exam were developed by generative AI, with no clear input or proofreading or acknowledgement by licensed attorneys. An additional 48 questions were reused from the first-year law student's exam, often called the baby bar. These facts represent an exam that fell well short of the high standards of the California State Bar. To ensure a situation such as this never happens again and to protect the public, AB 2109 will require California to adopt the universal bar exam or its successor exam. In doing so, California will join 41 other states in adopting the universal bar exam, which is a proven, stable, and trusted examination used by attorneys around the nation. Our office has been in active discussions with the committee surrounding the constitutionality of this legislation. While we have not had any outreach from the California State Bar or the Supreme Court of California, we certainly most welcome the opportunity to work with them and discuss the legislation further. In fact, as we know, the Chief Justice referenced this matter in her address to the legislature yesterday. Regardless, the California State Bar has failed to act and it has cost both students and the state dearly. It is time to step in and ensure a stable and quality testing experience while maintaining the high standards of California attorneys.
I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2109? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2109? We'll bring it back to the committee for any
questions or comments. Assemblymember Zabur. So thank you. I'm the one that pulled this, not because I don't plan on supporting the bill today. I just am hopeful that we have some input from judicial counsel, other experts on sort of what went wrong. My sense is that there was more wrong than actually just the test. So I appreciate your focusing on this issue. Obviously, you know, what happened in the last administration of the bar exam was disastrous, as our chief justice pointed out in the address yesterday. But I do think that we need to actually have some engagement with the State Bar, the Judicial Council and others in terms of how, you know, sort of a comprehensive way of addressing some of the problems that arose. But I do intend to support the bill today.
Thank you, Mr. Zubour. Yes, we would, I think we all would want to make sure we're all on the same page and work through the process and be consistent. in that, and I would support that strongly. Thank you. And do we have a motion in a second? I'll move it. Okay. All right. And thank you, Assemblyman, for raising those issues. And look, the bar exam implementation last year was an unmitigated disaster on a number of fronts. So to Mr. Zabura's point, it's not simply the test itself. However, I do think this bill really provides for an incredibly important conversation and agreed, and I know you will, continue outreach to traditional counsel and to the state bar to get their input. And I do like the idea, and I used to kind of see it as a badge of honor. It's like, well, you take the California bar, it's a special bar, and you can't go practice anywhere else. But I've come to warm up the idea of reciprocity might be a good thing for folks that take the bar in California. And, you know, when I took it, it was three days. I don't know what it is now, but, you know, it was snowing all three days, too. I had to get through a blizzard to get to the bar. So, you know, nowadays I'm open to other ideas. And so I think this is a really good bill to spur a really important conversation. I know you've been really focusing in ever since last year on the bar, and I appreciate you for doing that. Thank you. Would you like to close?
I thank you. I appreciate your comments, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Thank you. Motions do pass. The floor, Kalra?
Aye.
Kalra, aye. Macedo? Bauer-Cahan?
Ryan?
Aye.
Ryan, aye.
Connelly? Aye.
Connelly, aye.
Dixon?
Aye.
Dixon, aye. Hair Beating?
Aye.
Hair Beating, aye. Pacheco?
Aye.
Pacheco, aye. Pappin?
Sanchez?
Aye. Sanchez, aye.
Stephanie?
Zabur?
Aye.
Zabur, aye. Okay, that bill is out. And we have with us Assemblymember Bennett, AB-2125. Remember, you're ready. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. I'd like to begin by accepting the amendments on page 5 of the committee analysis. There you go, gentlemen. Thank you. So I accept the amendments that are on page 5 of the committee analysis. I also want to thank the committee staff for their work with my office on this. This is a fairly narrow technical change in the notification process. What basically has happened is adjudications are starting to increase dramatically with GSAs coming up with their water plans. We have some people that feel like they were not ever notified about the case at all. And as a result, they lost their water rights because they did not respond. And this is, I think, a common sense adjustment to the process to say that when the notifications are mailed out and the receipts come back, we should provide with the judge with that information in terms of how many people were received. Sometimes it might be 15 people, right? But if it a thousand people and you receive receipts back from 900 of them the judge might say hey how certain are we that the other hundred know that there even this case So this gives the judge the authority to take greater measures if in the judge opinion that needs to be taken But losing your water rights without ever knowing, and I can sit here and I'd be happy to give you some real examples of abuses that I believe took place, where notifications were signed by the same signature over and over again to multiple different people. Other things that just if a judge would have seen this in advance, it may have been able to take a different position. So with that, we have some representatives here also. And I was not aware that I had representatives coming here. So I am. Well, let's hear from them. I'm going to find out who they are also. Okay.
Well, go ahead, sir. We were told we weren't sure whether anybody was coming. People are very excited about the opportunity to speak on your bill. That's right. There you go. Good morning, committee members. My name is Daryl Smith. I'm a local farmer in Ventura County, and I'm also here to represent some of the people that couldn't make it who did not receive proper notification. I'm involved in the Las Postas adjudication over water. And I, like several other people without proper notice, lost my right to pump my water. I've been a farmer and pumping water for 37 years. And now I no longer have the opportunity to have allocations to pump. There was no formal notice or certified letter sent to me. And therefore, I was not aware that the adjudications would take away my water rights. And as a result, I feel that there was, without proper participation, I was denied due process, which I believe is the fundamental right of all of our citizens in this country. There's some talk about the fact that it was cost prohibitive to notify thousands of people. Well, the majority of those people are in homes and condominiums, and they're served by municipalities that are notified. So the need to notify everybody, there's a more effective way, I'm sure, to do that. The actual people that should have been notified were pumpers, which only numbers in a few hundred in Ventura County. And those people deserve proper notification, certified male, served in person, because water is our livelihood. Without it, we don't exist anymore. We can't tend to our crops. We can't exist as farmers. These are people that deserve direct notification. So I ask you, please, an aye vote for AB 2125 so we can clear up the fact of any fog that exists in notification. And there is proof by return receipt and therefore it could be verified for the courts and not left to some arbitrary decision made by a judge who may or may not be properly informed. I thank you very much for your time.
Thank you.
I don't want to get too close to Darrell. I'm also a farmer in Ventura County. My name is Doug Holmsey and we farm lemons at Locados and my wife and I do all the farming and by doing it all I mean that we actually do all the work She even got her own chainsaw just recently because we had so many ukes go down that I couldn't keep up with them. It's electric, by the way, so it's pretty slick. We also were not notified. In fact, we found out we have to this date have not been notified that we lost our allocation by anyone. We found out about it through a roundabout way from a neighbor of ours that sent a letter out saying, hey, do you know that that adjudication's over and you lost? And that's a travesty. I think it's something that can't happen. These adjudications are going to continue throughout the state, and they're going to use this adjudication of Ventura County as a model. and we need to fix what was wrong and we also need to clarify the law so that people can't use this law to take other waters because this adjudication ended up at the risk of bad-mouthing more lawyers. They're the ones that are profiting from this. I believe the adjudication in our area was $20 to $40 million was spent on the adjudication and not one drop of water was created, not one drop of water was brought in. You know, it was just divided up. And I'm in favor of dividing the water up. I think SGMA is a good law. I think the danger of overpumping is there. But in Ventura County, it's not as severe where we are as it is in other areas of the county. And I think it was, you know, we were taken advantage of as the first.
And I would like to see this passed.
I really appreciate Mr. Bennett authoring this bill, and I urge you to vote aye. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2125?
Yes, good morning. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We don't yet have a position, but certainly support the intent of the bill of improving noticing in these complex adjudications and better documenting that with the court. Really appreciate the work of the author, his staff, the committee consultant with the amendments. We're just reviewing those amendments and we'll certainly be in touch with the author going forward. Thank you.
I'm sure the chamber supports our small family farmers, Rodder writes.
Hi, I'm his wife.
I'm a chainsaw lady.
So you're doing all the work with the electric chainsaw, huh?
How's that working?
It's great because I can't pull that. But, you know, you start and you stop and you start and you stop and you got to do it. The only thing is, is the battery only lasts about 40 minutes.
Well, then you get a break after 40 minutes.
Well, I have two batteries. So I go to 140, put it in the charger. The charger takes about an hour. So, you know, but I get the other 40 and then I take a break, 20 minute break, and then I have another battery. So but this is this is devastating to us to lose our water. Absolutely devastating. We don't sleep at night. We bought the family farm from his folks. Then we just want to continue to farm.
Well, I want to thank you, all three of you, for taking the time to come up here to Sacramento. And, you know, oftentimes we get caught up in our world up here. and it's always refreshing to hear from real people that are being affected by what's happening on the ground with our legal system. And so I want to thank the author for recognizing that and recognizing that we need to do better when it comes to ensuring especially when it comes to water rights I mean I think that something that always needs to have transparency when that's in jeopardy. And I know that there was some mention of what costs would be to mail out, but at the end of the day, it is a balancing act of the cost notice versus losing your water rights. And I think that if we're weighing those two, So I think it's a no-brainer. Plus, it gives the judge discretion so that, as mentioned, if it's a jurisdiction where it's just a bunch of condos, the judge can make a judgment call. Okay, well, they're already being served by water. It gives the judge the ability to make that judgment call, being cognizant of the cost of doing it while making sure that folks that actually would have an impact are getting registered notice before any action is taken. As I said, Member Dixon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to clarify, I support the bill strongly. A couple of questions I want to ask. So I was getting a certified letter, but was there any kind of public process when they were going through where the water was going to be allocated? Did you even know about just the process? I knew there was a lawsuit, but I didn't know it was directed towards us. I thought it was directed towards Fox Canyon Groundwater Management in order to regulate water. as Mr. Holmes has pointed out, SIGMA was designed to protect the aglomerate. And we all knew that. And I thought that Fox Canyon was the one in charge. I didn't know. And no, I did not receive a certified letter. And as a matter of fact, through discovery through our lawyers, which was quite expensive, it was pointed out that my letter was dropped in the mailbox, not knowing who did it, why or when it happened. And years later, I find out by attending a meeting, you don't have your allocations anymore. They no longer exist. And so now, in order to preserve my crop, I continue to pump. I continue to protect my crop. And if this goes through and we lose our allocations, I face civil penalties that will actually wipe me out. So you still have your water. Both of you still have your water. My well is still working. The well still works. But if it's not allocated, then there's no water. I have no allocations, but I still stay in compliance. In other words, I notified the GMA of my extractions. I pay the fees that are required. So I try to stay in compliance. But as I point out, without the opportunity for due process. You don't know what you don't know. I don't know what I don't know. And we are subject to civil penalties that, as I say, as this is resolved. against us, I'll probably owe a predatory amount of probably a million dollars or more. Okay. Thank you for this. So going to, through this, well, let me commend my colleague, Mr. Bennett, you went to your legislator and here we are. So he listens to, to the needs of his constituents, but if there, and I support amending the state law, but if there was no other path forward to save this through the process of, I mean, testifying at the meetings or the lawsuit or anything like that. It's a shame we had to go through all of this to go through this process. If I could answer that, by the time I was notified by my neighbor that this had occurred informally, we tried to contact attorneys. You couldn't find one in Ventura that didn't already have a conflict of interest with somebody else in Ventura. We went to an attorney at first, and by the time we were notified, we were beyond on the point of appeal to the court directly, the 48 hour, 60 day, whatever it was. We were beyond that. It was almost six months after the judgment had been rendered. And so we pursued it. We have gone to court. We've spent a million and a half dollars, I believe, you know, a group of us, a dozen or 20 of us, I think it is. Yes. And we went to the same judge as did the original adjudication. And he didn't pay attention to the case at all. He had decided he let the opposing lawyers write his decision for him and had it presented the day that we were supposed to testify. So it was over. Well, I'm glad that your assembly representative is taking this. Well, amend state law. No one will go through this process again. It's really regrettable. But I'm sorry to hear that. I mean, a lot of lawsuits are how does anyone pay attention to all those kinds of things unless you're a party to the lawsuit. But anyway, thank you for bringing it to all of us. And I'm glad we can be supportive that you have motions. I'll make a motion. Assemblymember Brian. Yeah, I'd like to second that motion. I made two pretty strong commitments when I first got to the legislature. One was to never go against Assemblymember Bennett fighting for water rights. And the second was to never make angry a righteous woman with a chainsaw. And you brought both today. And so you have my support. And I just want to thank you and you guys for coming up and telling us what's going on. Thank you. Assembly members of Burke. Sir, thank you so much. I think it's really important what you're doing to try to make sure that people who have the risk of losing rights that are important for their business and their livelihood as a family have the ability to get noticed before these allocations take place. Water law is an arcane area, which is one I don't really understand very much. I used to avoid that when I was a practicing lawyer and hand that off to other people. In cases like this where it looks like there were just gross lack of notice. What's the impediments to actually reopening up the adjudication? I mean, why was that? Is that something that you could consider adding to the bill in addition to the increases in the notice? I appreciate the question. I would like this bill to be much stronger. I think that there is a real problem with judges that have been doing this for long periods of time. They're the ones that get all the water cases. They have the relationships with the powerful attorneys and the powerful law firms that are out there. And they are very reluctant to take the positions of Mr. Smith and Mr. Omzi into consideration. And so it was like a problem. I think that the judge in this lawsuit was wrong in so many aspects in terms of the ruling. But it was, if you don't mind, I'll digress just really quickly. The old way that water adjudication used to be settled, water adjudications used to be lots of private parties, maybe a couple of cities would be involved. And they're trying to decide, you know, how are we going to, the water that comes from this river or the water that comes from this basin, how are we going to divide it up? Everybody was fighting. Usually they were fighting with each other. And if the judge could get out of 10 people if the judge could get seven or eight of them to agree the judge would go wow that great That going to be the way I going to go Now what we had changed in California is we have one GSA who sits there and tries to come up with the right allocation gets sued by everybody who doesn like that allocation process So they're already a big, cohesive group of people. So you have one GSA in opposition to maybe 15 or 20 powerful landowners. So they go to the judge who's used to saying, hey, as soon as I can get most of the people on board. Well, the one GSA represents all the small people, right? And the 15 or 20 all have the same interest, which is overturning the GSA ruling. So they all go, judge, we've got a solution where 15 out of 16 of us agree. And the judge goes, that sounds pretty good to me. because that's how the judge has always done it. It was the wrong adjudication. But once it started down that road, then when they came and said, look, here's evidence that we have the same signature on 10 different things, you know, actual fraud. Judge goes, hey, that's not my job. So I wish it would be stronger. And if the indulgence of the chair, I'm going to say something, which I was going to say in my clothes, but it feels more appropriate to say right now. We've had a few moments of humor here with me not knowing who was coming and the chainsaw, et cetera. But we also had a very appropriate moment of how serious this is. And we have opposition pushing when we said there ought to be even stronger. Right now we're saying, hey, the judge has the discretion to do this. they're saying, hey, mailing a $10, you know, to do a $10 mailing to each person is just too much. That's what the opposition has said, which is why we've taken the amendment we did. But after hearing this today, I want to acknowledge to the chair and to the committee staff and to the opposition that's out there that we've negotiated with, that I will probably be seeking something stronger than this as this bill moves forward. because I think that losing your water right because somebody didn't want to pay $10 to mail you notification. And Mr. Smith gave me, I think, the trigger for that, which is maybe we set something up where you don't mail to every condo owner who's represented by the city. But if you're a water pumper, right, and you have a farm and you're going to lose your allocation, that should require more than just the, you know, hope you got the notification and the judge having the possibility of saying, hey, we didn't get a receipt from this person. So I will probably be trying to do that with the indulgence of the chair. Yeah, I was going to say, you know, this is about notice and about making sure that everyone gets notice. And one of the concerns you had about that, and I don't know that it's clear. I was trying to read and understand how this works in the bill, but is that if you can't get notice, a resigned receipt from every person doesn't sort of hold up the adjudication. And obviously you want a resigned receipt, but there's probably going to be in some adjudications, some number of people that you don't get a receipt from. And I'm just wondering if there could be stronger provisions in the law that basically say that when, if there are a number of people that have not gotten receipt, that's got to be something that the judge considers. and they've got to consider that in the allocation, that there's probably people out there that haven gotten receipt and are going to come back later on And then the second thing is you know it just seems like if this is happening as much as it is and I can sort of see this, you've got powerful interests that basically just want the adjudication to be completed. The folks that don't know about it are going to be the small family farmers, people that are not reading a notice in a newspaper. If they, you know, if they, you know, I don't know what the notice is for property that I only, you know, where a notice would go if you just went off a public record. But I'm just wondering if there could be more explicit criterion for when an adjudication can be opened when you've got groups of people that haven't gotten actual notice. if if i could just very quickly i would just say it seems to me that if you have a thousand people that were sent to notice and a hundred of them you don't have the receipt back and remember the receipt back supposed to be the person you're paying supposed to be getting the receipt back right uh that the first burden ought to be on you that to prove you really did service and this is just somebody who's just, you know, being an obstructionist. So I think that's one of the things that could happen. There could be some burden on the notifier to prove they went through good notification rather than the burden is on them to hire attorneys and sue and say, hey, we weren't properly notified. Last thing, I think it's a great bill. I mean, I grew up on a farm and obviously, you know, water rights were an important part of the ability to sustain yourself and your family. And, you know, it's an incredibly important thing. And I know from this whole area that that area is arcane. It is a body that is, you know, sort of set aside and, you know, and it is controlled by large, powerful landowners. And so just want to thank you for bringing the bill. Thank you. Thank you. And, you know, that old saying, whiskeys for drinking, waters we're fighting over, right? I mean, this is, especially if you have a farm, that's your life's blood. And so I think, you know, I trust our judges to kind of, you know, if it's, there's the HOA, send it, you know, an apartment, condo, they can send it to the HOA, a register. I mean, there's different ways that I think that we want to give a little flexibility to the judges, but there's no doubt that someone's a water pumper or what have you, that we need to make certain that they're aware because we focus so much on access to justice in this committee. well, the first part of access to justice is notice. If you don't know, you have no justice. And so I really appreciate the author for so keenly focusing on this. And I'm certainly open to other measures that you might come forward with in terms of making it an even stronger piece of legislation. And our committee is here to help work with you on that. Thank you.
Would you like to close?
Respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Motions do pass as amended. Caller?
Aye. Aye. Chalra, aye. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Cahan, Bryan, aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian, aye. Pacheco, aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappan, Sanchez, aye. Stephanie, Ziver, aye.
That bill is out. We are on item 7 AB 2534 We have a motion by Mr Harabedian Second by Mr. Bryan.
Mr. Cholera, Mr. Chair, you can be in whenever you're ready.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members.
AB 2534 is a measure that will protect individuals from being forced into a marriage and help survivors be safe from a forced marriage. This bill extends protections under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act to explicitly allow individuals to file a restraining order on the basis of a forced marriage or the attempts, threats, or preparation to compel marriage. Survivors of forced marriage frequently experience overlapping forms of abuse, including threats of violence, sexual assault, confinement, isolation, financial control, surveillance, and immigration-related threats. additionally coercion is often reinforced through extended family members or community members and leaders making it difficult for survivors to escape a situation with little to no support or protection while the domestic violence prevention act recognizes coercive control and conduct that disturbs the peace of a protected party it does not clearly list forced marriage as a basis for a restraining order. As a result, survivors are uncertain whether their situation is covered by the Act and are left with few options. AB 2534 will extend these protective orders under the Act to explicitly include forced marriage. Courts will be able to issue protective orders to all parties that are involved in the forced marriage or coercion process. Additionally, the bill will prohibit the facilitation of any marriage for the protected party require that travel documents be returned to the protected party and ensure the protected party is not removed or prevented from going to places like school, attorney meetings, medical appointments, or other activities. AB 2534 will empower individuals, especially young girls and women, to take courageous steps to protect themselves from being forced into a marriage or to feel safe and secure to escape the harms of a forced marriage. With me today to provide supporting testimony is Sadia Khan, policy advocate with Family Violence Law Center.
Madam Vice Chair and committee members, my name is Sadia Khan. I'm a policy advocate with the Family Violence Law Center, and I want to thank you for allowing me to share my story today. Is it broken? Those were the words that rang through my ears as I woke up to find my abuser on top of me and my clothes laying on the floor. Is it broken? He repeated, referring to the fact that he was unable to force himself into me. while I also I'll spare you the horrific details of what came next this is how I woke up the night of my forced marriage I remember being locked in a room the night before being told I would be beaten if I left the room or tried to protest the marriage I had never before met this man and yet I was sitting there staring at the marriage contract trying to make sense of the words except I didn't know how to read the language that stared back at me what but what I did know was that my life was about to change drastically this man was 12 years my senior senior and often bragged about how he beat the women in his life. I remember the first day I set foot into his home and he told me I wasn't allowed to practice my faith nor go to school. I wasn't allowed to make new friends nor maintain conversations. contact with my family or friends. In the nine months following the forced marriage, my fate was similar to that of Dolores Huerta. Her story mirrors how I too became a parent. At 19 years old, my biggest worries should have been planning my college schedule and the career path I wanted to take, not trying to figure out how to take my own life to escape this abuse. I had to rely on the courts of another nation to grant me a forced marriage protection order. No American should ever have to beg another country to protect them. But I'm not alone. Among the 22 million people around the world who were forced to marry in 2021. 7 million were men and nearly 60% of the victims were 18 years or older at the time the marriage took place. For every statistic, there's a real person with real stories. People you might pass on the streets, people who are your neighbors, co-workers, constituents, and sometimes it's the person sitting right in front of you. AB 2534 will help protect Californians from forced marriage and provide relief when survivors are seeking to escape. Today, we have a unique opportunity to pass a bill that will expand existing protective orders to prevent forced marriage by addressing the unique threats and forms of abuse survivors face. As you heard in my own story and what is true for so many others, forced marriage is not a single act. It's a gateway to ongoing violence. By creating a tool for intervention, we will spare Californians the pain of forced marriage and all the harms that follow. AB 2534 will empower survivors to define for themselves the protections they need, determine from whom they need protection, and offer tools for prevention and intervention, both of which are currently lacking here in California. My legal battle has been 12 years in the making, and it isn't over yet. Every human being deserves the right and full autonomy to choose their own happily ever after, something myself and many others have been robbed of. It is for these reasons that I urge your support for survivors, and I vote on AB 2534. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your strength. Do we have any others in the room in support?
Good morning. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California in support.
Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the dais. Mr. Zaberg.
I just want to thank the witness for being here today. I know that this is probably not an easy thing to do, and just am grateful that you're doing this for others that really are enduring these kinds of conditions. So thank you. And I want to thank the author and would love to be at it as a co-author.
Thank you, Ms. Gisbert.
Ms. Dixon. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I support the bill strongly and I appreciate Assemblymember Colorado Chair bringing this forward. I have a question. Is this, does this bill, in addition to the domestic violence aspect of it, But how does this intersect with forced marriage? And I think that's a good thing, but I just want to know how to protect or prohibit the forced marriage part of it.
Well, there are. So there's a couple of things here. There's already a ban on forced marriage. You're not allowed to get for it. But what this does is actually allows you to take action before it happens. We don't want to wait until someone's already been forced to go through a marriage for them to have the ability to do something, have some legal action. So this actually gets ahead of it by allowing an individual to seek a protective order, not only against the potential family member or the potential future spouse that's being forced upon them, but even members of the community. Sometimes there could be members of clergy. There could be other members of community that kind of envelop around the potential victim and survivor that really makes it difficult for them to maneuver This would allow that restraining order to be placed against any of those individuals that are part of the process of forcing an individual into a forced marriage So it kind of gets, it's kind of, I see it as a gap in our current laws, but not allowing early action when you're being put in that position.
So you're really not prohibiting, because I've looked into this, because in my district I have a large constituent base of Iranian people and Indian women who have talked to me about doing a bill to prohibit forced marriage. But I understand it's very complex and I certainly want to, but it's between this, you mentioned your age was 19 and then the 18, but I hear about a lot of under 18 issues. And that's a great point because
both child marriage as well as forced marriage are not allowable under the law. However, this seeks to address a lot of people that are 18, 19 years old. Well, they're not children anymore, but they're still, or 20 or 25, at any age, can still be a victim of a forced marriage. It's not just whether they're a minor or not. So this actually fixes that gap. And as I mentioned, forced marriages are already illegal. but this allows action before you get to the point of going through a forced marriage and now retroactively having to have the marriage annulled, having to go through a legal process in retrospect. And so I'm glad you mentioned the child marriage aspect because this also fixes that gap because it's not just children that are-
But a 16-year-old would be covered under this.
Oh, certainly. Oh, certainly. Absolutely. It would be anyone. But I think the key aspect is that because it would fall under the domestic violence restraining order process, you could be any age and still have access to this protection. That's very smart. Well, thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Dixon. Ms. Pappin?
Well, I just came, but I'm so glad that I got to hear your testimony. And under no circumstances should any of this be tolerated. So I thank the author. I thank you for being bold enough to be here. I regret the journey that you've had to go through, but I just had to chime in. So thank you for your strength and thank you for fighting the good fight.
Thank you, Ms. Papp and Ms. Stephanie. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for bringing this forward. And I'm so sorry, I only got to hear half of your testimony but I did want to add my name as a co-author and definitely believe that we should not be allowing forced marriages and we should be increasing ways to prevent that from happening. I also believe that we shouldn't be allowing anyone under the age of 18 to get married at all, but that's a subject for another day. But I definitely think that it's really important that we do everything we can to increase abilities to make sure that we are protecting those that are being forced into these marriages against their will. So thank you to the author, and I definitely would like to be added as a co-author. Thank you, Ms. Stephanie. Oh,
Ms. Papin. I'd like to be a co-author as well. Forgot that part. Very nice. Any other members? Thank you.
undo what has happened to you, but I hope through your healing process, you see the incredible difference you will make for so many in your same situation So with that Mr Collar would you like to close Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to my colleagues for your comments and co And I agree with the chair and with other sentiments of the courage of our witness, Ms. Khan, not only for having to relive the trauma, but of becoming a policy advocate to ensure that others don't go through that same trauma. I think that that really is a sign of extraordinary courageousness. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Motions do pass to appropriations. Kalra?
Aye.
Kalra, aye. Macedo?
Aye.
Macedo, aye. Barcahan? Bryan? Thank you. Bryan, aye. Connelly?
Connelly, aye.
Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian?
Aye.
Harabedian, aye. Pacheco?
Aye.
Pacheco, aye. Pappin?
Aye.
Pappin, aye. Sanchez?
Aye.
Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Stephanie, aye. Zabir?
Zabir, aye.
All right. So that bill is out and everyone's here. Sorry, except for Lin-Bow. Okay. Anyway, so first of all, we're about to finish up on the bills. I want to just start first, since we have almost everyone here. Most of you may know that for essentially this entire year, our committee has been short-staffed by two consultants. And you know how hard this committee already works, and I always get wonderful feedback from committee members and authors. But I'm happy to say that we have a new addition, and I would like to introduce our newest counsel and committee consultant, Christian Wright. So we welcome Ms. Wright, and I thank the Rules Committee, Rules Chair, for helping to facilitate and move along the hiring process, because we need all the help we can get in this committee. All right. So with that, that's first of all, I would ask if there's a motion. There's one bill that doesn't have a motion because I think only one of the members here at the time. I have AB 2305 cholera. We have a motion in a second. If we can get a roll call vote on that, please. This is AB 2305 cholera. Motions do pass as amended. Cholera. Aye. Cholera, aye. Macedo. Aye. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Cahan. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin. Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabir. Aye. Zabir, aye. All right. Thank you. I'll go on to add-ons for the consent calendar. For consent, Macedo. Aye. Macedo, aye. Bargahan. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. Pappin. Aye. Pappin, aye. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, aye. Okay. And then add-ons for item one, AB 2039, Zabir. Macedo.
Aye.
Macedo, aye. Barakahan. Bryan.
Aye.
Bryan, aye. Pappin.
Aye.
Pappin, aye. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, aye. And we'll move the call on item two, AB 2115, Ramos. Macedo.
Aye.
Macedo, aye. Barakahan.
Bryan.
Bryan, aye. Pappin.
Aye.
Pappin, aye. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabur.
Aye.
Zabur, aye. That bill is out. Any add-ons for Bennett? Was everybody who was here, AB 2125? Oh, we need, yeah. AB 2125, Bennett. Barakahan. Papin.
Aye.
葉. Aye. Item four, AB 2179 Patel. Marcardo.
Marcardo.
Brian.
Aye.
Aye. cohort20222 Ab 2179 Patel. B act. Brian vain and RawrkhНaiem. I study by a combination. All right. Item nine AB 2209 Dixon Mocito Aye Macedo aye Bauer Pappin Aye Pappin aye Stephanie Aye Stephanie aye Okay I believe everyone here is all caught up Thank you. Thank you. recess for 15 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right. We, yeah. And so we'll reconvene. You're welcome. We'll reconvene from recess for any additional add-ons. Let me go through. We'll start with the consent calendar. Consent. Barakahan.
Aye.
Barakahan, aye. All right. On to item one AB 2039 Zabir Barakahan Aye Barakahan aye I don know my aye Item two AB 2115 Ramos Aye Barakahan, aye. Item three, AB 2125 Bennett.
Aye.
Barakahan, aye. Item four, AB 2179 Patel.
Aye.
Barakahan, aye. Item five, AB 2305 Cholera.
Aye.
Barakahan, aye. Very clearly an aye on that one. Good. Item six, AB 2323, McKinner.
Aye.
Bauer-Cahan, aye. AB 72534, cholera.
Aye.
Bauer-Cahan, aye. And then item nine, AB 2109, Dixon.
Aye.
Bauer-Cahan, aye. I'm not sure about that one, but aye. All right. I had to take the hard test. I actually did mention that during the... We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.