Individual legislator voting records for this vote are not currently available. Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

AB 2274 - An Act to Amend Sections 391.1, 391.2, 391.3, and 391.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Civil Procedure.

Vexatious litigants. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law provides that a defendant in any litigation pending in any court in the state may move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security, based upon the ground that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, as defined, and has no reasonable probability of prevailing. Upon motion, existing law requires the court to consider specified evidence as… More
Existing law provides that a defendant in any litigation pending in any court in the state may move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security, based upon the ground that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, as defined, and has no reasonable probability of prevailing. Upon motion, existing law requires the court to consider specified evidence as may be material to the ground of the motion, but prohibits any determination made by the court to be or be deemed a determination of any issue in the litigation. Existing law requires the court to order the plaintiff to furnish security if, after hearing the evidence upon the motion, the court determines that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail. Existing law provides that when a motion to require security is filed prior to trial, the litigation is stayed and the moving defendant is not required to plead until 10 days after the motion is denied or, if granted, 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant has been given notice. Existing law provides that if a motion is filed any time after trial begins, the litigation is required to be stayed for such period after the denial of the motion or the furnishing of the required security, as determined by the court.

This bill would additionally authorize a defendant to move for an order to dismiss litigation or to seek relief in the alternative, as specified. The bill would require the defendant to combine all grounds for relief in one motion.

This bill would require the court to order the litigation dismissed if, after hearing evidence on the motion, the court determines the litigation has no merit. The bill would specify that these provisions would only apply to litigation filed in a court of this state by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order, as specified, who was represented by counsel at the time the litigation was filed and who became in propria persona after the withdrawal of his or her attorney. Hide
 
Status:
The bill has become law (chaptered). 
Assembly Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 22, 2012.

voted YES: 78 voted NO: 1
1 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Sections 391.1, 391.2, 391.3, and 391.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Civil Procedure.

AB 2274 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
Existing law provides that a defendant in any litigation pending in any court in the state may move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security, based upon the ground that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, as defined, and has no reasonable probability of prevailing. Upon motion, existing law requires the court to consider specified evidence as may be material to the ground of the motion, but prohibits any determination made by the court to be or be deemed a determination of any issue in the litigation. Existing law requires the court to order the plaintiff to furnish security if, after hearing the evidence upon the motion, the court determines that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail. Existing law provides that when a motion to require security is filed prior to trial, the litigation is stayed and the moving defendant is not required to plead until 10 days after the motion is denied or, if granted, 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant has been given notice. Existing law provides that if a motion is filed… More
Existing law provides that a defendant in any litigation pending in any court in the state may move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security, based upon the ground that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, as defined, and has no reasonable probability of prevailing. Upon motion, existing law requires the court to consider specified evidence as may be material to the ground of the motion, but prohibits any determination made by the court to be or be deemed a determination of any issue in the litigation. Existing law requires the court to order the plaintiff to furnish security if, after hearing the evidence upon the motion, the court determines that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail. Existing law provides that when a motion to require security is filed prior to trial, the litigation is stayed and the moving defendant is not required to plead until 10 days after the motion is denied or, if granted, 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant has been given notice. Existing law provides that if a motion is filed any time after trial begins, the litigation is required to be stayed for such period after the denial of the motion or the furnishing of the required security, as determined by the court.

This bill would additionally authorize a defendant to move for an order to dismiss litigation or to seek relief in the alternative, as specified. The bill would require the defendant to combine all grounds for relief in one motion.

This bill would require the court to order the litigation dismissed if, after hearing evidence on the motion, the court determines the litigation has no merit. The bill would specify that these provisions would only apply to litigation filed in a court of this state by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order, as specified, who was represented by counsel at the time the litigation was filed and who became in propria persona after the withdrawal of his or her attorney. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 391.1, 391.2, 391.3, and 391.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Civil Procedure.
Author(s)
Ricardo Lara
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Vexatious litigants
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/24/2012
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary5/08/2012
    Passed Assembly5/21/2012
    Passed Senate Committee on Judiciary6/26/2012
    Passed Senate8/20/2012
    Passed Assembly8/22/2012
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)8/30/2012
    Became law (chaptered).9/21/2012
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciaryDo pass as amended.5/08/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
    10 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblyAB 2274 LARA Assembly Third Reading5/21/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
    76 voted YES 0 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on JudiciaryDo pass as amended.6/26/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Judiciary
    4 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateAssembly 3rd Reading AB2274 Lara By Vargas8/20/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
    38 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedAssemblyAB 2274 LARA Concurrence in Senate Amendments8/22/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
    78 voted YES 1 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/24/2012
    2/24/2012Introduced. To print.
    2/26/2012From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.
    2/27/2012Read first time.
    3/29/2012Referred to Com. on JUD. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
    4/09/2012Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    select this voteVote5/08/2012Do pass as amended.
    5/14/2012From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (May 8).
    5/15/2012Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
    5/16/2012Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
    5/21/2012Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 4918.)
    5/21/2012In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage5/21/2012AB 2274 LARA Assembly Third Reading
    5/31/2012Referred to Com. on JUD.
    6/15/2012In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
    select this voteVote6/26/2012Do pass as amended.
    7/02/2012From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 26).
    7/03/2012Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
    7/05/2012Ordered to special consent calendar.
    7/06/2012Ordered to third reading.
    8/20/2012Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 4573.).
    8/20/2012In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 22 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage8/20/2012Assembly 3rd Reading AB2274 Lara By Vargas
    8/22/2012Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 1. Page 6110.).
    currently selectedAssembly Vote on Passage8/22/2012AB 2274 LARA Concurrence in Senate Amendments
    8/30/2012Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.
    9/21/2012Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 417, Statutes of 2012.
    9/21/2012Approved by the Governor.

    Total contributions given to Assemblymembers from interest groups that…

    21 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Sections 391.1, 391.2, 391.3, and 391.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Civil Procedure.: AB 2274 LARA Concurrence in Senate Amendments

    21 organizations supported this bill

    American Council of Engineering Companies
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Association of California Insurance Companies
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Association of Bed & Breakfast Inns
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Chamber of Commerce
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Farm Bureau Federation
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Framing Contractors Association
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Grocers Association
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Hotel & Lodging Association
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Independent Grocers Association
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California League of Food Processors
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Manufacturers & Technology Association
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Retailers Association
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Civil Justice Association of California
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Cooperative of American Physicians
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Judicial Council of California
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    League of California Cities
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Motion Picture Association of America
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    National Federation of Independent Business
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, July 3). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

    0 organizations opposed this bill

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Assemblymembers in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2012.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Contributions by Legislator

    Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Katcho AchadjianRCA-33$21,750$0
    Luis AlejoDCA-28$23,498$0
    Michael AllenDCA-7$23,500$0
    Tom AmmianoDCA-13$1,100$0
    Toni AtkinsDCA-76$70,200$0
    Jim BeallDCA-24$15,400$0
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$74,618$0
    Marty BlockDCA-78$8,650$0
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$12,850$0
    Susan BonillaDCA-11$46,726$0
    Steven BradfordDCA-51$20,000$0
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$52,464$0
    Betsy ButlerDCA-53$24,600$0
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0
    Nora CamposDCA-23$16,365$0
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0
    Gilbert CedilloDCA-45$0$0
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$15,500$0
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$128,325$0
    Paul CookRCA-65$0$0
    Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0
    Roger DickinsonDCA-9$6,100$0
    Tim DonnellyRCA-59$7,500$0
    Mike EngDCA-49$0$0
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0
    Paul FongDCA-22$9,900$0
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0
    Beth GainesRCA-4$123,475$0
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$45,558$0
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0
    Mike GattoDCA-43$66,450$0
    Rich GordonDCA-21$58,510$0
    Jeff GorellRCA-37$38,350$0
    Shannon GroveRCA-32$14,750$0
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$57,500$0
    Linda HaldermanRCA-29$0$0
    Isadore HallDCA-52$56,268$0
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$32,200$0
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0
    Roger HernandezDCA-57$35,100$0
    Jerry HillDCA-19$78,140$0
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0
    Ben HuesoDCA-79$34,681$0
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0
    Brian JonesRCA-77$25,200$0
    Steve KnightRCA-36$10,050$0
    Ricardo LaraDCA-50$46,700$0
    Dan LogueRCA-3$41,830$0
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$6,500$0
    Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0
    Allan MansoorRCA-68$23,300$0
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$104,450$0
    Holly MitchellDCA-47$30,792$0
    Bill MonningDCA-27$16,030$0
    Mike MorrellRCA-63$23,470$0
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$39,400$0
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$26,782$0
    Chris NorbyRCA-72$32,900$0
    Kristin OlsenRCA-25$73,575$0
    Richard PanDCA-5$87,877$0
    Henry PereaDCA-31$116,509$0
    John PerezDCA-46$113,346$0
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$62,200$0
    Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$0$0
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$28,201$0
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0
    Norma TorresDCA-61$39,226$0
    David ValadaoRCA-30$0$0
    Don WagnerRCA-70$36,200$0
    Bob WieckowskiDCA-20$7,400$0
    Das WilliamsDCA-35$34,950$0
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$4,400$0

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Katcho AchadjianRCA-33$21,750$0
    Luis AlejoDCA-28$23,498$0
    Michael AllenDCA-7$23,500$0
    Tom AmmianoDCA-13$1,100$0
    Toni AtkinsDCA-76$70,200$0
    Jim BeallDCA-24$15,400$0
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$74,618$0
    Marty BlockDCA-78$8,650$0
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$12,850$0
    Susan BonillaDCA-11$46,726$0
    Steven BradfordDCA-51$20,000$0
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$52,464$0
    Betsy ButlerDCA-53$24,600$0
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0
    Nora CamposDCA-23$16,365$0
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0
    Gilbert CedilloDCA-45$0$0
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$15,500$0
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$128,325$0
    Paul CookRCA-65$0$0
    Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0
    Roger DickinsonDCA-9$6,100$0
    Tim DonnellyRCA-59$7,500$0
    Mike EngDCA-49$0$0
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0
    Paul FongDCA-22$9,900$0
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0
    Beth GainesRCA-4$123,475$0
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$45,558$0
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0
    Mike GattoDCA-43$66,450$0
    Rich GordonDCA-21$58,510$0
    Jeff GorellRCA-37$38,350$0
    Shannon GroveRCA-32$14,750$0
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$57,500$0
    Linda HaldermanRCA-29$0$0
    Isadore HallDCA-52$56,268$0
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$32,200$0
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0
    Roger HernandezDCA-57$35,100$0
    Jerry HillDCA-19$78,140$0
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0
    Ben HuesoDCA-79$34,681$0
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0
    Brian JonesRCA-77$25,200$0
    Steve KnightRCA-36$10,050$0
    Ricardo LaraDCA-50$46,700$0
    Dan LogueRCA-3$41,830$0
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$6,500$0
    Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0
    Allan MansoorRCA-68$23,300$0
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$104,450$0
    Holly MitchellDCA-47$30,792$0
    Bill MonningDCA-27$16,030$0
    Mike MorrellRCA-63$23,470$0
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$39,400$0
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$26,782$0
    Chris NorbyRCA-72$32,900$0
    Kristin OlsenRCA-25$73,575$0
    Richard PanDCA-5$87,877$0
    Henry PereaDCA-31$116,509$0
    John PerezDCA-46$113,346$0
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$62,200$0
    Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$0$0
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$28,201$0
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0
    Norma TorresDCA-61$39,226$0
    David ValadaoRCA-30$0$0
    Don WagnerRCA-70$36,200$0
    Bob WieckowskiDCA-20$7,400$0
    Das WilliamsDCA-35$34,950$0
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$4,400$0

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated
    Property & casualty insurance$1,051,599
    Physicians$346,154
    Food stores$171,763
    Engineering, architecture & construction management services$103,695
    Food & beverage products and services$99,344
    Farm Bureau/affiliated organizations & PACs$83,080
    Pro-business organizations$72,092
    Chambers of commerce$62,400
    Hotels & motels$56,150
    Motion picture production & distribution$49,300
    Retail trade$41,479
    Municipal & county government organizations$31,800
    Manufacturing$30,253
    Small business organizations$17,700
    Courts & justice system$15,858
    Building materials$8,500
    Special trade contractors$6,150
    Public official (elected or appointed)$3,500
    Lodging & tourism$500

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range