Source: https://calspro.org/legislation/legislative-history/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:31:25+00:00

Document:
A compilation of our aggressive legislative programs over the last forty years that have helped to keep us in business, expand our business, and shape the civil procedure and discovery process.
Our advocate and the legislative committee were able to protect the process serving profession from Senate Bill 183, later amended to Senate Bill 349. This bill would have caused a great deal of harm to the process serving industry. As proposed, the bill would clarify the power of judicial officers to prevent activities that threaten access to courthouses, including by protecting the privilege from arrest. The bill would provide that no person shall be subject to civil arrest or service of process while attending, or going to or from, a courthouse or court proceeding. The bill would provide that a person who knowingly executes or facilitates an arrest or service of process at a courthouse or court proceeding shall be liable for contempt of court, false imprisonment, or both. CALSPro vehemently opposed this bill and moved quickly to meet with the Senator Lara’s office. After several meetings, the author agreed to remove all language referring to service of process.
CICA proposed and CALSPro supported bill that added a new section to the CCP § 411.20.5 to provide where a represented party fails to remit payment to an electronic filing service provider, the electronic filing service provider may notify the clerk, and the clerk may notify the attorney of record that the attorney may be sanctioned for nonpayment of fees. The bill allows the court to sanction the attorney of record if the fees to the electronic service provider remain unpaid 20 days after notice by the clerk.
It also amended section 6159 of the Government code allowing electronic filing service providers, as agents of the court to impose a fee, subject to Judicial Council approval, for the use of a credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer, as specified. Existing law deems an electronic filing service provider who is required to collect and remit a filing fee or other court fee to complete an electronic filing transaction to be an agent of the court solely for that purpose. Also, in case of a duplicate payment by a party or an electronic filing service provider submitting a payment on behalf of a party, would require the court to issue any appropriate refund to the entity that made the most recent payment. The bill was signed by Governor Brown on September 5, 2018, CHAPTER 248.
CALSPro sponsored bill AB2286 was passed. The bill amended CCP § 1011(b)(1) to expand hours for service of a notice to a pro se party by delivery between 8 AM and 8 PM. Our logic was if all adult residents work during normal business hours, they are often gone before 8 AM and don’t return from work until after 6 PM. The bill simply widened the window to effect serving notice to the pro se party by leaving the documents with someone else if he or she is not present. The bill was signed by Governor Brown on August 27, 2018, CHAPTER 212.
This was a bill introduced by the Judicial Council dealing with eFiling and eService. CALSPro and CICA offered a variety of suggestions dealing with these two issues. Several of our proposals were implemented and our involvement helped raise the legal support professions reputation and expertise in the implementation of these two issues. This legislation was signed by Governor Brown on September 27, 2017.
This legislation proposed a change in CCP 415.20 (b) allowing substituted service on an individual at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency on the first attempt. The legislation was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on July 24, 2017 and went into effect on January 01, 2018.
Direction on the Legislative agenda for 2017 began with the associations continued desire to move our registration from a countywide to a statewide platform. After discussion and input from our Legislative Advocate Michael Belote, it was decided to again table this project for 2017 and discuss the project again in 2018. The Legislative Committee continued to work with the Coalition to Increase Court Awareness (CICA) on a proactive agenda dealing with eFiling and eService.
The discussion on AB 2244 began in earnest at our 45th Conference held in 2013 at Lake Tahoe. As courts began to move towards eFiling and eService how would our concerns and expertise be presented and heard? Discussions continued about the relevant part we play in the integrity of our legal system.
Existing law authorizes the electronic service of documents in accordance with uniform rules adopted by the Judicial Council, as specified. Upon Judicial Council adoption of the uniform rules, existing law authorizes a superior court, by local rule, to require mandatory electronic filing and service of documents for specified civil actions in accordance with certain requirements including a requirement that any fees charged by the court do not exceed the actual cost of electronic filing and service of documents. This bill would add the additional requirement that a fee to process a payment that is charged by the court, an electronic filing manager, or an electronic filing service provider, does not exceed the actual costs incurred for processing the payment. The bill would require waiver of fees to process a payment if the court deems waiver appropriate. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
This bill was extensively discussed by the Judicial Council, the Assembly and the Senate. This bill has been signed by Governor Brown and chaptered on September 22, 2016 and goes into effect on January 01, 2017. A special thanks to our advocate Michael Belote and CICA General Director Jeff Karotkin for a job well done. AB 2244 has shown CALSPro’s desire not to just protect our place in our legal system but to protect the integrity of the system also.
The discussion on AB 2211 began 2 ½ years ago the Sacramento sheriff began requiring the same process server who would serve the Writ or Earnings Withholding Order be the one who would deposit the assignment with the sheriff. In 2015, it was decided by the CALSpro Board of Directors to address wording in the civil code of procedure as follows: “Before levying under the writ of execution, the registered process server shall deposit a copy of the writ shall be deposited with the levying officer and pay along with the fee provided by Section 26721 of the Government Code”. It had been hoped to make this part of an Omnibus Bill in 2015. When that was not possible, stand alone legislation was introduced in 2016. This legislation was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on July 25, 2016 and went into effect January 01, 2017.
The legislative agenda for 2016 had begun several years prior. Legislation does not just happen. Ideas are presented, discussed, modified and planned. The two pieces of legislation in 2016 are good examples of this process.
The Legislative Committee’s focus this year was mostly “reactive”, reviewing all legislation submitted and then responding to the impact it would have on our profession. AB 1337 dealt with delivery of documents and an authorization form to be used statewide. Tom Alkema and Michael Belote shared our concerns on behalf of our members in the photocopy profession. Amendments were introduced addressing those concerns and the legislation was passed.
SB 641 deals with debt buying and implements a process for a default to be set aside under certain situations. Terms such as “if service of the summons did not result in actual notice” included in the legislation raise concerns regarding a variety of issues. Mr. Belote discussed those concerns with the author and amendments to protect registered process servers were added.
Two specific pieces of legislation required a reactive response by the Legislative Committee. One was AB 2256. This is a piece of Legislation sponsored by the Sheriff’s. The Legislative committee had a telephone conference meeting to discuss the bill as the Sheriff’s had contacted Mike Belote to get our input. There were several areas of agreement and disagreement. The Sheriff’s agreed to remove all portions of the bill with which we disagreed. We believe the negotiations between our two associations were very positive and will lead to further positive interactions’ AB 2256 was chaptered on September 20, 2014 and included a raise in sheriff’s fees for service of a summons and complaint to $40.00, which we enthusiastically support.
We received notice of amendments to AB 2059 on June 04, 2014 and this was introduced by the Consumer Attorneys and affected our photocopy members. A number of unfavorable amendments were suggested by other groups that were opposed. Michael Belote and Tom Alkema met with the author to share our concerns. On August 22, 2014 the legislation was ordered to the inactive file at the request of Senator Block.
At our December 2013 Directors meeting it was decided to introduce legislation in 2014 moving process server registration from the current county by county model overseen by the county clerks to a statewide model overseen by the State Bar of California.
The court budget issues continued to be a major concern. Court closures and the possibility of filing fee increases were of great concern. At our March 2013 Board meeting we were privileged to have Mary Thornton House, Supervising Judge of Los Angeles County, give us an overview of how this issue was affecting Los Angeles and other counties. It was a positive time of interaction with parties on both sides of the filing window.
Several pieces of legislation were reviewed, and positions taken. SB 588 (Emerson), dealing with the photocopy profession, was discussed at length and it was decided to oppose the bill. The bill dealt mainly with electronic documents and the fees being charged. After initial discussions with the proponents of the bill, it was decided to make this a 2 year bill. This effectively killed the bill for this session. Discussions have continued to see if common ground can be found dealing with these issues and others that were raised by CALSPro.
The State’s budget battles continue to be of primary focus. County Courts have laid off hundreds of employees, closed both courts and courtrooms, reassigned staff to lower pay positions, reduced hours of operations and eliminated services to the public.
In March 2012, the Judicial Council voted to stop deployment of the California Case Management System (CCMS). CCMS had been the courts vision and platform for implementing statewide eFiling.
AB 2362 allowed for financial institutions with 9 or more branch offices to designate a central location for the service of writs and levies, including hours for service of process. The Department of Financial Institutions will be required to maintain a current online record to reflect said designation.
This year, as in recent years, the primary concern of the Judicial Branch was the budget. The AOC, Judicial Council and courts face some tough decisions in the near future dealing with budget reductions, staff furloughs and a work load that is not declining. Several courts announced plans for closures of courtrooms and clerk’s offices (described as furlough days) over the November and December holidays. The Ventura Court announced it was facing a budget deficit of $9.3 million-dollar deficit for Fiscal year 2012.
Despite the budget focus, 2323 pieces of legislation were introduced. The Leg Committee along with California Advocates reviewed all bills introduced, evaluating potential impact on our members. Approximately 35 were identified and either opposed or supported. While no CALSPro sponsored legislation was introduced this year, the need for excellent representation in Sacramento was again affirmed by the review all legislation.
CALSPro worked together with the California Association of Licensed Investigators and put together a letter and phone call campaign, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, met with members of the judiciary, and along with some superb lobbying, we were ultimately able to defeat SB984. This bill in its initial version would have imposed fines of $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 for serving the wrong person or at a bad address. The language was ambiguous and could have allowed multiple people at one address to make claims of erroneous service, each instance and/or claim with its own fine. The bill was amended and the fines removed but it then placed a requirement that the first attempt at service of a summons and complaint that initiates an action could only be made between 7:00AM and 8:00PM. This bill never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.
Sponsored by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept., this bill initially sought to allow county sheriff’s to serve writs, garnishments, subpoenas and “other judicial process” electronically. The end result could have been a taxpayer sponsored system of low cost electronic service statewide, leading to the loss of millions of dollars in revenue for our members. CALSPro was instrumental in getting changes made to this bill through meetings, teleconferences, and emails. Ultimately, all of the electronic service provisions were removed from the bill.
CALSPro language added to the courts omnibus bill allowing us to effect changes to CCP§706.108(a). In 2007, AB758 made similar changes to sections related to returns of writs and proofs after service after a levy. This change was a corrective change to allow 5 court days instead of 5 calendar days to return the writ and proof(s) after service of an Earnings Withholding Order as well.
CAPPS sponsored AB758 was passed. This bill changed the requirement for the return of proofs of service after performance of a levy from 5 calendar days to 5 court days. The bill clarified language relating to the required “affidavit” stating the manner of levy performed after service of a writ of attachment or execution; now only requiring proof of service on the holder of the property. Other changes were made to the requirements for service of process on writs of possession.
AB2303 passed and added Chief Executive Officer, Controller, and Chief Financial Officer as authorized agents for service upon a corporation.
CAPPS Sponsored bill AB496 was passed. Clarifies that service at penal institutions could be made by any person authorized to serve process, at a state or county institution. This bill also changed the Code of Civil Procedure in that the court would issue and retain the original summons. No longer would the original have to be returned after all defendants were served and it eliminated the entire procedure for a lost summons. Also, it eliminated the notice requirement when a party was subpoenaing their own personal records.
CAPPS, along with a consumer advocate group, lobbied against AB1495. This bill would have permitted anyone to serve a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession. The Senate Judiciary Committee was convinced that notice to occupants was better left to Sheriff’s and Registered Process Servers.
A bill sponsored by ISPs that would have provided a mechanism to charge any amount in responding to a records subpoena. The law had a potential to allow an ISP any amount to cover their costs and interruption of “normal operations” to respond to the subpoena. The bill was defeated on a narrow vote.
CAPPS bill allowing substituted service at a place of mailing; eliminate need for diligence on an individual at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency; allow unnamed occupants to be included in an unlawful detainer posting order; allow service of a business organization, form unknown.
No consensus was reached on eliminating diligence prior to sub service at a CMRA, and it was removed from the bill. The bill’s ability to add an unnamed tenant to the posting order was not only opposed, but an amendment was proposed that would sanction a process server who improperly served an unlawful detainer.
The bill passed that allows sub service on a business at a CMRA, and a business organization, form unknown service provision was passed.
The California Judicial Council proposed the repeal of a rule of court that allows for computer generated proofs of service. This would have rendered obsolete most of the computer generated proof of service programs with the introduction of the new POS-010 Proof of Service of Summons form.
The committee arranged a meeting to demonstrate how a process server prepares proofs of service, and why the rule needed to stay. The rule was not repealed.
Frontier Pacific’s bonds are cancelled affecting several association members. Efforts were instituted to get the word out.
Support limits requirements publication orders to require a search of only those records accessible by a registered process server; allows for subsequent levies on the same writ; eliminate the restriction on recoverable costs while serving an earnings withholding order. Passed.
Allows a Process Server bond to be filed 60 days prior to the expiration date.
Temporary ID card bill was hijacked, and amended away.
CAPPS sponsored bill to provide an exemption to a registered process server from the trespass law for vehicular trespass while serving process.
Enabling legislation would authorize the Judicial Council to develop rules for electronic filing. Lobbying efforts behind the scenes eliminated “after hours” filings and added time for service by e-mail.
Notice to Consumer and Objection Form introduced. Comments made to Judicial Council, and a meeting was arranged to urge elimination of the form. The form stays.
Supported CALI bill to regain access to DMV records. Passed but vetoed.
Omnibus Bill that CAPPS added as amendments: exempt a registered photocopier from the registration act if services are records only subpoena; provided a felon to file a certificate of rehabilitation, expungement or pardon while registering; RPS may post cash instead of a bond; clerk may serve an OSC re contempt on a person who fails to return an ID card.
CAPPS bill to require “reasonable business hours” access to hospital and doctor’s offices to copy medical records. Passed.
Support a bill to allow lawyers, and a registered process server at a lawyer’s directive, access to voter’s registration records for civil litigation purposes. Vetoed.
Opposed a bill that would have authorized service by mail of DMV suspension and revocation hearings. The DMV argues that it is a $10 million item in their annual budget. Since the service contract is awarded to one process serving company that has several CAPPS members as employees, this bill would benefit only that company.
Opposed a bill that would allow service by mail child support documents in “Title IV-D” cases. It was defeated, but was resurrected and authorized as a pilot program in San Diego County. The bill was carried over into the next session.
Registration act is amended, eliminating the concept of serving under another server’s registration number, fingerprinting and background checks, and the issuance of ID cards. The bill carried 15 items that related to process serving and photocopying. The bill took opposition from trial lawyers, bankers, county clerks, and others.
Because the EDD is working on the industry specific regulation, all EDD process server tax audits have stopped.
Opposed a bill that would permit family law documents to be served by mail.
CAPPS and EDD meet to create an industry specific tax regulation.
CAPPS bill to define a gated community; amend the registration act.
Small claims court jurisdiction to increase from $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 was removed from the bill.
After discussions from the CAPPS Planning Retreat in Monterey, and a CAPPS Registration Act Summit in Sacramento, the legislative committee began to craft an amendment to the registration act. Ideas ranged from licensing, certification, commissioning programs, testing, background checks, etc. The committee heard from a representative of Notary Division of the California Secretary of State.
Due to the lack of success in defining an independent contractor law, the committee recommended that CAPPS meet with the EDD to work on an industry specific regulation for this industry.
Proposal to serve family law summons via first class mail was opposed and removed from the Omnibus bill.
CAPPS proposed language to a bill attempting to define the definition of an independent contractor. The EDD opposes the bill, and the bill is withdrawn because the projected loss in revenue stated by the EDD made passage doubtful.
CAPPS and the EDD initiate discussion to create the industry specific tax regulation relating to independent contractor process servers.
Gives a registered process server, marshal and sheriff access to a gated community. The bill protects the holding in Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal. App.4th 1387, 8 Cal.Rptr. 351 which allows service on a security guard who denies access.
Confirms vehicular trespass as an exemption for process servers while serving process.
A bill that would have made it harder for a person to be classified as an independent contractor was killed in the Senate.
Omnibus Bill that included deposit of witness fees with public agencies; a law restricting a custodian of records from releasing subpoenaed documents until the date and time set for production.
A statutory framework was implemented codifying fax filing.
CAPPS participation in the Judicial Council/Fax Project Review/Study Committee contributed to the shape of the law.
CAPPS sponsors a statutory fee increase. The fees increase to $24.00 on 7/1/93, $25.00, $26.00, and $28.00 in 1995, 1997, and 1999, respectively.
CAPPS supports a Marshal/Sheriff effort to raise the statutory fee from $20.00 to $25.00, suggesting a periodic increase based on the Consumer Price Index. The Collector’s make another deal that agrees to a $1.00 increase. CAPPS opposed, then removed opposition after an agreement to work together on increases in the future.
Increased the small claim court jurisdiction to $5,000.00.
Allowed the addition of $100.00 to a judgment at the time the writ is issued.
Corrected problems regarding the posting of a $150.00 witness fee for a peace officer.
CAPPS was successful in having the bond amount of $50,000.00 reduced to $5,000.00 to access DMV records through a DMV directed administrative procedure. CAPPS files Request to File an Amicus Brief in support of Kaiser in an appellate court case John Starbuck, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, et al., a case that addressed whether the per page fee limitation for copied medical records applies to both a healthcare provider and third party copiers.
Amendment to the Registered Process Server’s Act to substitute the county prosecutor in the place of the county clerk for purposes of investigating and prosecuting the wrong doing of a registered process server.
Created a Fax Pilot Project, allowing for fax filings. CAPPS members participated in the Judicial Council hearings and removed “mail provisions” in the fax filing rules. A delay of 2 days was one of the provisions added to the fax service rules.
Access to DMV records severely restricted after the murder of the actress Rebecca Schaeffer by a person who obtained her address through DMV records.
Changed the procedure for serving a minor with a subpoena the same as when serving a minor with a summons.
Provided the same protection of a registered process server as a peace officer, firefighter, etc., when assaulted while performing his or her duties.
Required the County Clerk to record the bonds filed to register as a process server and a photocopier.
Increased small claims jurisdiction to $2,000 on 1/1/89, and to $2,500.00 on 1/1/91.
Allowed punitive damages for failure to pay a dishonored check.
Supported Marshal’s and Sheriff’s statutory fees to increase from $16.00 to $20.00, and eliminated a fee for a “due diligence declaration.” Passed.
Restricted production of subpoenaed business records to be produced only to someone who is registered as a photocopier. Passed.
The California Discovery Act was passed, inserting “registered professional photocopier” throughout the photocopying and discovery process.
Collectors bill to provide for service by mail defeated.
Renumbered recoverable costs provision and added “registered process server” more prominently in the statute.
Opposed a bill that would allow counties to contract out process serving to private process servers. Defeated or withdrawn by sponsor.
Supported Marshal’s and Sheriff’s statutory fees to increase from $14.00 to $16.00. Passed.
A bill introduced by the collectors was opposed, and it ultimately was defeated or withdrawn by the sponsor.
A bill detrimental to photocopiers was defeated by successfully urging a veto.
Opposed a mailing bill that was amended into a bill late in the session. The author withdrew it prior to the bill being heard.
Required a ministerial officer (Sheriff) to charge $14.00 to prepare and execute a declaration re diligence.
Bill to modify CCP § 1985.3 to provide a custodian of records with more than one location to be served no less than 10 days prior to the date specified for production.
Proposed amendments to the registration act. Opposition to bill resulted in putting the bill over to the next year’s program.
Allowed recoverable costs to be entered, and prohibited the clerk from denying such costs. (CCP § 1032(b). An amendment was proposed by the Administrative Office of the US Courts to amend Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for providing for service of a summons by mail. The AOC had concluded its public hearings and submitted it to the US Supreme Court for approval. The rule was suspended without such approval, the first time in US history that a rule had not been approved at that point in the process. Since many state specific service of process laws are patterned after the FRC, this could have decimated the process serving industry nationwide. NAPPS is formed.
Revised the statutes authorizing a registered process server to serve writs of attachment and writs of execution.
Would allow service of subpoenas by mail to custodians of records. Defeated. Jurisdiction of small claims court increased to $750.00.
Would allow service of summonses by mail. Defeated.
Supported a bill to increase the statutory fee from $8.50 to $14.00. Passed.
Supported a bill to increase the statutory fee from $8.50 to $14.00. Defeated.
Supported a bill to increase the statutory fee from $8.50 to $19.50. Defeated.
Proposal would have authorized service of process by mail. Opposed and defeated in its first committee hearing.
Would change the statutory fee for service of process from $3.00 per document to $5.00 per document, + $1.00 per mile. Supported and Passed, but vetoed by Governor in favor of SB 953.
Provided for the service of subpoenas by first class mail. Opposed bill and defeated it.
Minor amendments to the registration law that would give Subpoena power to hearing officers at a revocation hearing, and allows for a process server to retain a registration number upon timely renewal.
Bill that would authorize service of a summons via first class mail. Opposed bill and defeated it.
Authorizing registered process servers to serve post judgment order to appear for examination. Unsuccessful.
Attempted to change the law making an assault a felony. Unsuccessful.
Sheriff-Marshal merger bill that would have eliminated process serving by private process server opposed and successfully amended to retain private process servers.
Restriction of service of post judgment orders for appearance of judgment debtors by private process servers.
Service by mail authorized for summons using a Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt; Substituted service introduced as an alternative manner of service (CCP §§ 415.30; 415.20).

References: § 411
 § 1011
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1985
 § 1032