Legislation > Pending Legislation > May 2007 Report

CDRC Legislative Status Report May 2007
CDRC
AB 189	(Dymally) Collaborative law. (I-01/25/2007  html  pdf)
	Status: 05/14/2007-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(3). Last location was JUD.
	Current Location: 05/14/2007-A 2 YEAR
	Summary: Existing law establishes procedures related to proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, and legal separation, as specified. Existing law, the Collaborative Family Law Act, provides that if a written agreement is entered into by the parties, the parties may utilize a collaborative law process, as defined, to resolve family law matters, as specified. This bill would prohibit an attorney hired to represent one or more parties in a collaborative law process from serving as litigation counsel, except to ask the court to approve a settlement agreement. The bill would require a party to seek new counsel or represent himself or herself in order to proceed in litigation if the process terminates without a settlement. The bill would deem any statement, communication, or work product made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a collaborative family law case, confidential and inadmissible in any noncriminal proceeding, except by written agreement to the contrary by the parties, and, as specified. The bill would also specify when a collaborative law process terminates. The bill would require a court to refrain from requiring court appearances inconsistent with the parties' agreement to participate in a collaborative law process, unless it finds good cause for doing so. This bill contains other related provisions.
	History: Apr. 10 In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. Feb. 9 Referred to Com. on JUD. Jan. 26 From printer. May be heard in committee February 25. Jan. 25 Read first time. To print.
	Organization CDRC
AB 567	(Saldana) Common Interest Development Bureau. (A-04/10/2007  html  pdf)
	Status: 05/02/2007-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). Last location was H. & C.D.
	Current Location: 05/02/2007-A 2 YEAR
	Summary:  Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, defines and regulates common interest developments, which include condominiums and planned developments. The act requires that a common interest development be managed by an association, and establishes requirements for association operating rules and meetings and for the resolution of specified disputes. This bill would, until January 1, 2013, establish in the Department of Consumer Affairs the Common Interest Development Bureau. The bill would require the bureau, among other things, to offer training materials and courses to common interest development directors, officers, and owners, in subjects relevant to the operation of a common interest development and the rights and duties of an association or owner. The bill would require the bureau to maintain a toll-free telephone number and Internet Web site for purposes of further providing that information and assistance, and would require an association director or agent to meet certain requirements in that regard. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
	History: Apr. 23 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Apr. 11 Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D. Apr. 10 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended. Apr. 9 Referred to Com. on H. & C.D. Feb. 22 From printer. May be heard in committee March 24. Feb. 21 Read first time. To print.
	Organization CDRC	Assigned DBS	Position Watch
AB 1092	(Emmerson) Recreational vehicles. (A-04/10/2007  html  pdf)
	Status: 05/17/2007-In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
	Current Location: 05/17/2007-S RLS.
	Summary: Existing law prohibits a manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch that is licensed under the Vehicle Code from engaging in certain conduct involving a dealer having a franchise for the sale of new vehicles or vehicle pats. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill contains other existing laws.
	History: May 17 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1535.) May 17 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. May 14 Read second time. To Consent Calendar. May 10 From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (May 9). Apr. 24 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 23). Apr. 11 Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. Apr. 10 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. Apr. 9 Referred to Com. on TRANS. Feb. 26 Read first time. Feb. 25 From printer. May be heard in committee March 27. Feb. 23 Introduced. To print.
	Organization CDRC		Position Under review by client
AB 1248	(Evans) Courts. (A-04/30/2007  html  pdf)
	Status: 05/10/2007-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
	Current Location: 05/10/2007-A APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
	Summary:  Existing law requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to make monthly distributions from superior court filing fees to the law library fund in each county in specified amounts. This bill would increase the amount of these monthly distributions for the Counties of Inyo, Mendocino, Plumas, and San Benito, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
	History: May 10 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. May 1 Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Apr. 30 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended. Apr. 17 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 17). Apr. 12 Re-referred to Com. on JUD. Apr. 11 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended. Apr. 10 In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. Mar. 28 Re-referred to Com. on JUD. Mar. 27 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended. Mar. 15 Referred to Com. on JUD. Feb. 26 Read first time. Feb. 25 From printer. May be heard in committee March 27. Feb. 23 Introduced. To print.
	Organization CDRC		Position Under review by client
AB 1644	(Niello) Out-of-state carriers. (I-02/23/2007  html  pdf)
	Status: 05/02/2007-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). Last location was HEALTH
	Current Location: 05/02/2007-A 2 YEAR
	Summary: Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, requires, subject to specified exceptions, that a health care service plan be licensed by the Department of Managed Health Care and provide basic health care services, as defined, unless exempted from that requirement by the director. Existing law also requires, subject to specified exceptions, that an insurer obtain a certificate of authority from the Insurance Commissioner in order to transact business in this state and that the insurer operate in accordance with specified requirements. This bill would allow a carrier domiciled in another state to offer, sell, or renew in this state an essential health benefit plan meeting certain unspecified requirements, without holding a license issued by the department or a certificate of authority issued by the commissioner, and would exempt the essential health benefit plan from requirements otherwise applicable to plans and insurance policies providing health care coverage in this state. The bill would require that the carrier maintain a dispute resolution process and be lawfully authorized to issue an essential health benefit plan and to transact business in its domiciliary state.
	History: Apr. 17 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Mar. 26 Referred to Com. on HEALTH. Feb. 26 Read first time. Feb. 25 From printer. May be heard in committee March 27. Feb. 23 Introduced. To print.
	Organization CDRC		Position Under review by client
AB 1659	(Lieber) Special education: procedural safeguards. (A-05/02/2007  html  pdf)
	Status: 05/03/2007-Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
	Current Location: 05/03/2007-A APPR.
	Summary:  Existing law requires school districts, county offices of education, and special education local plan areas to comply with state laws that conform to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act , in order that the state may qualify for federal funds available for the education of individuals with exceptional needs, as defined. Statutory provisions establish a right of individuals with exceptional needs to receive free appropriate public education and ensures the right to special instruction and related services needed to meet their unique needs, in conformity with federal law. Statutory provisions define the term "specific learning disability" and provides the manner of assessing a pupil for that disability. This bill would require a pupil who responds well to intensive instruction during response-to-intervention processes to continue to receive services designed to enable the pupil to achieve grade level proficiency as well as regular performance monitoring whether or not the pupil is found eligible for special education services. On or before July 1, 2008, each local educational agency would be required to report to the State Department of Education, and to attach to its notice of parent rights a statement that details its standards and processes for identifying pupils as eligible for special education based on a specific learning disability. The bill would require the agency to submit another report to the department whenever the agency changes its standards and processes. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
	History: May 3 Re-referred to Com. on APPR. May 2 Read second time and amended. May 1 From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 25). Apr. 18 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Apr. 16 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended. Apr. 10 Re-referred to Com. on ED. Apr. 9 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended. Mar. 26 Referred to Com. on ED. Feb. 26 Read first time. Feb. 25 From printer. May be heard in committee March 27. Feb. 23 Introduced. To print.
	Organization CDRC		Position Under review by client
AB 1725	(Committee on Judiciary) Discrimination: medical care. (A-04/10/2007  html  pdf)
	Status: 05/09/2007-Referred to Com. on JUD.
	Current Location: 05/09/2007-S JUD.
	Summary: The Unruh Civil Rights Act entitles all persons within the jurisdiction of this state to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments, regardless of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. This bill would further prohibit a business establishment subject to those licensing provisions from discriminating against a patient based upon sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation, except as specified. This bill contains other existing laws.
	History: May 9 Referred to Com. on JUD. Apr. 23 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1115.) Apr. 23 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. Apr. 18 Read second time. To Consent Calendar. Apr. 17 From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (April 17). Apr. 11 Re-referred to Com. on JUD. Apr. 10 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended. Apr. 9 Referred to Com. on JUD. Mar. 7 From printer. May be heard in committee April 6. Mar. 6 Read first time. To print.
	Organization CDRC		Position Spot Bill - Watch
AB 1726	(Committee on Judiciary) Evidence: court interpreters. (I-03/06/2007  html  pdf)
	Status: 05/10/2007-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
	Current Location: 05/10/2007-A APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
	Summary: Existing law requires that in any action or proceeding pursuant to specified provisions of law, an interpreter be provided by the court for a party who is incapable of understanding or speaking the English language to interpret the proceedings in a language that the party understands and to assist communication between the party and his or her attorney. This bill, operative on July 1, 2008, would revise the above provision to specify that in any civil action or proceeding, including, but not limited to, any family court proceeding, any small claims court proceeding, any proceeding to determine the mental competency of a person, or any court-ordered or court-provided alternative dispute resolution, including mediation and arbitration, with specified exceptions, in which a party does not proficiently speak or understand the English language, an interpreter is required to be present to interpret the proceedings, as specified. The bill would also require a court to provide the interpreter, unless a party has notified the court that he or she has made arrangements for a private interpreter. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
	History: May 10 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. Apr. 24 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 24). Apr. 17 In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. Mar. 29 Referred to Com. on JUD. Mar. 7 From printer. May be heard in committee April 6. Mar. 6 Read first time. To print.
	Organization CDRC		Position Under review by client