SB 857

Bill Subjects

Abstract

(1) Existing law specifies uniform fees for filing first papers in connection with specified civil proceedings, and states the intent of the Legislature to establish a moratorium on increases in filing fees until January 1, 2012. This bill would extend that moratorium until July 1, 2013, but would impose a supplemental fee for filing first papers, until that date, subject to reduction if the amount of the General Fund appropriation to the Trial Court Trust Fund is decreased from the amount appropriated in the 2010–11 fiscal year. The supplemental fees collected pursuant to these provisions would be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund. The bill would make other conforming changes. (2) Existing law specifies various uniform fees for filing specified documents in connection with certain civil proceedings. The fee for filing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues is $200, and the fee for filing in the superior court an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice is $250. Existing law provides that the entire fee collected for the pro hac vice application shall be transmitted to the state for deposit into the Immediate and Critical Needs Account of the State Court Facilities Construction Fund. This bill, until July 1, 2013, would increase each of those fees to $500, and would provide for 12 of the pro hac vice application fee to be transmitted to the state for deposit into the Trial Court Trust Fund. Until July 1, 2013, the bill also would require an attorney whose application to appear as counsel pro hac vice has been granted to pay an annual renewal fee of $500 for each year that the attorney maintains pro hac vice status in the case in which the application was granted. The entire renewal fee would be transmitted to the state for deposit into the Trial Court Trust Fund. (3) Existing law requires an added state court construction penalty of $4.50 to be included in the total penalty, fine, or forfeiture, of every parking offense for which a penalty, fine, or forfeiture is imposed. Existing law requires those collected penalty payments to be deposited monthly with the county treasurer who in turn transmits those moneys to the Controller, as specified. This bill would specify that in the event those payments were deposited in a local courthouse construction fund and expended pursuant to a specified provision, the county or processing agency would not be liable for the failure to transmit that penalty to the Controller during the 2008 calendar year. The bill also would require the Judicial Council to conduct a pilot program until July 1, 2013, to assess the benefits and impacts of requiring all subcontractors with bids in excess of $500,000 to pay for employee health expenses for construction field employees working in California, and giving quality points to a proposing construction manager at risk that pays for those employee health expenses, as specified. The bill would require the Administrative Office of the Courts to issue a report in connection with the pilot program on or before July 1, 2015. (4) Existing law provides that, in all general civil cases, except as specified, a party that has provided notice may appear by telephone at specified conferences, hearings, and proceedings. Existing law establishes the Trial Court Trust Fund to fund trial court operations, as specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2011, to establish statewide, uniform fees to be paid by a party for appearing by telephone, in addition to any other fees paid to vendors and courts, as specified. The bill would provide that, until July 1, 2013, if a vendor or court later receives a fee or a portion of a fee for appearance by telephone that was previously waived, that fee would be distributed, as specified. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2011, and periodically thereafter as appropriate, to enter into one or more master agreements with a vendor or vendors to provide for telephone appearances in civil cases. The bill would limit the methods by which a court may make telephone appearances available to a party. The bill, until July 1, 2013, would also require each vendor or court that provides for appearances by telephone to transmit $20, for each fee received for providing telephone appearance services, to the State Treasury for deposit in the Trial Court Trust Fund, except as specified. Until July 1, 2013, the bill would require that if the vendor or court receives a portion of the fee, as specified, the vendor or court shall transmit only the proportionate share of the amount, as specified. The bill would require vendors to transmit, as specified, an amount equal to the total amount of revenue received by all courts for providing appearances for the 2009–10 fiscal year. The bill would require that the $20 fee or the proportionate share collected in that quarter be transmitted within 15 days after the end of each calendar quarter. The bill would require the Judicial Council to allocate the amount collected for specified purposes. The bill would also require trial courts to provide written notification to the public by conspicuous posting within or about its facilities, on its public Internet Web site, and to the Judicial Council not less than 60 days prior to closing any courtroom or closing or reducing the hours of clerks' offices during regular business hours, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council, within 15 days of receiving notice from a trial court, to conspicuously post on its Internet Web site and provide the chairs and vice chairs of specified legislative committees a copy of the notice. (5) Existing law authorizes any department, officer, or employee of a county or a judicial district in the county, charged by law with the collection of any county or district tax assessment, penalty, cost, license fees, or any judicial district fine, assessment, or penalty, or any money, which is due and payable to the county or district for any reason, to apply to the board of supervisors for a discharge from accountability for the collection thereof if the amount is too small to justify the cost of collection, the likelihood of collection does not warrant the expense involved, or the amount thereof has been otherwise lawfully compromised or adjusted. This bill would additionally authorize any collection program that is operated by a court to apply to the presiding judge of the court, or another designated judge, for a similar discharge of accountability, as specified. The bill would authorize the Judicial Council, by rule of court, to establish the process by which applications would be submitted and reviewed or the standards for ordering a discharge. The bill would provide that responsibility for collection of court-ordered debt or bail be demonstrated by a written agreement between the county and the court. The bill would authorize the court to transfer responsibility for discharging court-ordered debt or bail to the county by written agreement, if the court is responsible for collecting court-ordered debt or bail. (6) Existing law authorizes a county board of supervisors to make an order discharging a department, officer, or employee from further accountability and direct the county auditor to adjust any charge against the department, officer, or employee in a like amount. That discharge from accountability does not constitute a release of any person from liability for payment of any amount. This bill would require the county, within 45 days after the end of the month in which any discharge from accountability is approved, to report to the superior court the discharge from accountability for any court-ordered debt or bail that the county would otherwise have been responsible for collecting. The bill would require the report to include the following for each debt discharged: the case number, whether the case is an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony, the amount of the debt discharged, and the number of years since the debt became delinquent. (7) Existing law authorizes any county or court that implements a comprehensive program to identify and collect various delinquent fees and penalties to deduct and deposit in the county treasury or the trial court operations fund the cost of operating that program from any revenues collected prior to distributing the revenues to other governmental entities, as specified. This bill, on and after July 1, 2012, would provide that once a debt becomes delinquent, as specified, it continues to be delinquent and may be subject to collection by a comprehensive collection program. The bill would also modify the meaning of a comprehensive collection program. (8) Existing law authorizes the clerk of the court to accept a payment and forfeiture of at least 25% of the total bail amount for each infraction violation of the Vehicle Code prior to the date on which the defendant promised to appear, or prior to the expiration of any lawful continuance of that date, or upon receipt of information that an action has been filed and prior to the scheduled court date, if specified circumstances exist. Those circumstances include that the charge is of a nonparking infraction. This bill would instead authorize the clerk of the court to accept a payment and forfeiture of at least 10% of the total bail amount. The bill would extend that authorization for any infraction violation of the Vehicle Code. (9) Existing law requires the clerk of the court to accept from a person ordered or permitted to attend a traffic violator school a payment of at least 25% of a specified fee upon filing a written agreement by the defendant to pay the remainder of the fee according to an installment payment schedule of no more than 90 days as agreed upon with the court. When a defendant fails to make an installment payment of the fee according to an installment agreement, the court may convert the fee to bail, declare it forfeited, and report the forfeiture as a conviction, as specified. This bill will instead authorize the clerk of the court to accept a payment of at least 10% of the fee. The bill would specify that for the purposes of reporting a conviction pursuant to that provision, the date that the court declares the bail forfeited would be reported as the date of conviction. The bill would also establish a one-time amnesty program for fines and bail meeting certain requirements to accept, in full satisfaction of any eligible fine or bail, 50% of the fine or bail amount, between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2012. The bill would also require the Judicial Council to adopt guidelines for the amnesty program no later than November 1, 2011. The bill would require the Judicial Council to submit a report to the Legislature on or before December 31, 2012, summarizing the information provided by each court or county. (10) Existing law requires a levy in each county of an additional penalty in the amount of $7 for every $10, or part of $10, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses, including all offenses involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code. Existing law reduces that $7 additional penalty in each county by the additional penalty amount assessed by the county for the local courthouse construction fund, as specified. This bill would modify the additional penalty assessed by certain counties, as specified. (11) Existing law requires the Controller, to the extent feasible, to offset any amount overdue and unpaid for a fine, penalty, assessment, bail, vehicle parking penalty, or court-ordered reimbursement for court-related services, from a person or entity, against any amount owing the person or entity by a state agency on a claim for a refund from the Franchise Tax Board under the Personal Income Tax Law or the Bank and Corporation Tax Law, or from winnings in the California State Lottery. This bill would additionally require an offset against a cash payment of a claim for unclaimed property held by the state. (12) Existing law requires that a fee of $30 be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense, including traffic offenses, to ensure and maintain adequate funding for court security. Existing law requires the court fee to be reduced to $20 on July 1, 2011. This bill would instead raise the court fee to $40 until July 1, 2011, at which time the court fee would be reduced to $30, and on July 1, 2013, the court fee would be further reduced to $20. (13) Existing law requires the Judicial Council, on or after July 1, 2009, to establish a task force to evaluate criminal and traffic-related court-ordered debts imposed against adult and juvenile offenders. Among other things, the task force would be required to make recommendations to the Judicial Council no later than June 30, 2010, regarding the priority in which court-ordered debts should be satisfied. This bill would require the Judicial Council to establish that task force before June 30, 2011, and would add as members of the task force a county public defender and a city attorney appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and a defense attorney in private practice and a district attorney appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules. The bill would also require the task force to make those recommendations to the Judicial Council and the Legislature no later than June 30, 2011. (14) Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council to regulate the budget and fiscal management of the trial courts, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt regulations for recordkeeping and accounting by the courts ensuring that all revenues and expenditures relating to court operations are known. At the request of the Legislature, the Controller may perform and publish financial and fiscal compliance audits of the reports of court revenues and expenditures. The Controller is required to report the results of these audits to the Legislature and the Judicial Council, and the Judicial Council or its representative may perform audits and reviews of all court financial records wherever they may be located. This bill would, instead, authorize the Judicial Council or its representatives to inspect, review, and perform comprehensive oversight and analysis of court financial records wherever they may be located, and to investigate allegations of financial impropriety or mismanagement. The bill also would require a specified auditing entity, not earlier than July 1, 2011, and not later than December 15, 2012, to establish a pilot program to audit 6 trial courts, as specified, and, on or before December 15, 2013, to commence an audit of the trial courts, including a review of all funds within the trial court's administration or control. The bill would require the audit of each trial court at least once every 4 years. The bill would require the auditing entity to compile the trial court audit findings and report the results of these audits to the Legislature, the Judicial Council, and the Department of Finance no later than April 1 of each year. The bill would provide that the audit be paid for from funds of the local trial court being audited. This bill also would require the auditing entity, as specified, on or before December 15, 2013, and biennially thereafter, to perform an audit of the Administrative Office of the Courts, including a review of all funds under the administration, jurisdiction, or control of the Administrative Office of the Courts. The bill would require the auditing entity to provide a copy of the final audit report to the Legislature, the Judicial Council, and the Department of Finance upon issuance. The bill would also require the Judicial Council to conduct an analysis of the cost incurred by trial courts related to the default prove up process, as defined, and report on the different methods trial courts use in processing filings related to the default prove up process as well as the revenue generated by these filings. The bill would require the Judicial Council to provide its report to the Assembly Committee on Budget and the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review by June 30, 2012. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to review that report, consult with stakeholders, consider the best practices of other states, and make any recommendations to increase efficiency, streamline the processes and turnaround times for filing documents related to the default prove up process, and assess whether any changes should be made to the fee structure for filings related to the process. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to provide its recommendations to the Assembly Committee on Budget and the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review by September 30, 2011. (15) Existing law establishes the Trial Court Trust Fund for services provided to the court or courts by the Administrative Office of the Courts or payment for services or property of any kind contracted for by the court or courts or on behalf of the courts by the Administrative Office of the Courts. This bill would provide, commencing 60 days after the enactment of the Budget Act of 2010, and until July 1, 2013, that for each parking offense where a parking penalty, fine, or forfeiture is imposed, an added penalty of $3 shall be included in the total penalty, fine, or forfeiture, as specified. The bill would require the county treasurer to transmit the penalty to the Treasurer for deposit in the Trial Court Trust Fund, as specified. Because the bill would increase the duties of county employees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. (16) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.