•AB
27, by Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco,
which, as amended, would require that the costs of a venue change
be borne by the transferring court, or-for expenses not defined as
court operations-by the transferring county. The bill, which passed
the Assembly in May, passed the Senate Aug. 22 by a vote of 40-0 and
was sent to the Assembly for concurrence in Senate amendments.
•AB
176, by Assemblyman Rudy Bermudez, D-Norwalk, which
as amended would provide that the classification of a Los Angeles
Superior Court law clerk be changed from temporary to regular employee
after 180 days of employment. The bill, which passed the Assembly
May 31 by a vote of 46-33, passed the Senate Aug. 22 by a vote of
22-13 and was sent to the governor.
•AB
182, by Assemblyman John J. Benoit, R-Riverside,
which would make a technical change in the form of a search warrant.
The bill, which passed the Assembly in March, passed the Senate Aug.
18 by a vote of 29-1 and was sent to the governor.
•AB
415, by Assemblyman Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach,
which, as amended, would extend to Jan. 1, 2007 the sunset date of
legislation allowing non-California attorneys to appear in arbitration
proceedings under certain circumstances. The bill, which passed the
Assembly May 19 by a vote of 74-0, was amended in the Senate Aug.
18 and returned to the Judiciary Commttee, which approved it Aug.
24 by a vote of 7-0. .
•AB
1322, by Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa,
which would amend the requirement that a judge who has had discussions
with an ADR provider regarding potential employment recuse himself
or herself, absent waiver, from ADR-related matters. The bill, as
amended in the Assembly, would provide that this is only grounds for
disqualification if the discussions were initiated by the judge or
involved a substantive offer of employment, and would limit disqualification
to matters involving the ADR provider with which the discussions occurred.
The bill passed the Assembly in April by a vote of 74-0, and, as amended
in the Senate Aug. 18, would take effect immediately as an urgency
measure.
•AB
1529, by Assemblyman David Jones, D-Sacramento,
which, as amended, would authorize the State Bar to impose dues for
2006 and 2007, increase active member dues by $5, increase the assessment
for the Client Security Fund by $5, substantially increase dues for
inactive members, and require members with income of more than $40,000
annually from all sources to pay the full amount of dues even if none
of that income was derived from the practice of law. The bill, which
passed the Assembly May 16 by a vote of 49-25, passed the Senate Aug.
25 by a vote of 25-11 and was sent to the governor.
•SB
56, by Sen. Joseph Dunn, D-Garden Grove, which,
as amended, would authorize creation-subject to appropriations-of
an unspecified number of new superior court judgeships in each of
the next three years, plus the conversion of an unspecified number
of subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships, according
to uniform criteria established by the Judicial Council. The bill
was held by the Assembly Appropriations Committee Aug. 25, apparently
killing it for this year.
•SB
111, by Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-San Jose, which
as amended would permit prosecution of sex crimes against minors at
any time prior to the victim's 28th birthday, replacing the current
10-year statute of limitations as well as the law permitting otherwise
time-barred prosecutions to be brought, in some circumstances, up
to one year after a police report is filed. The bill, which passed
the Senate June 1 by a vote of 36-0, was amended in the Assembly Aug.
25. Prior to the amendment, the bill would have permitted prosecution
up until the minor's 30th birthday.
•SB
442, by Sen. Joseph Simitian, D-Pittsburg, which
as amended would increase the jurisdictional limit of the small claims
court from $5,000 to $7,500 in most cases, would require attorneys
serving as temporary small claims judges to take a course given by
the courts, and which passed the Senate May 31 by a vote of 24-14,
was amended in the Assembly Aug. 15 and again Aug. 25. One amendment
eliminated a provision that would have increased the filing fee for
claims over $5,000; a portion of the increase would have gone to law
libraries.
•SB
815, by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento,
which as amended would allow a plaintiff, in lieu of service by publication,
to serve the defendant's liability insurer if the defendant could
not be personally served despite due diligence, provided that a plaintiff
who serves the defendant in this manner waives any recovery in excess
of policy limits. The bill, which passed the Senate June 1 by a vote
of 25-15, was scheduled to be voted on yesterday in the Assembly.