California Bills: Search Results

Results 41-50 of 14,976 bills

AJR 49 (2013-2014) - Relative to Immigration.

Immigration: deportation

Lorena Gonzalez / The bill has become law (chaptered).

This measure would urge President Obama to take executive action to suspend any further deportations of legalization-eligible individuals with no serious criminal history.

AJR 50 (2013-2014) - Relative to Blood Donation.

Blood donation

Richard Bloom / The bill has become law (chaptered).

This measure would request that the President of the United States encourage, and that the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services adopt, policies that repeal the current donor suitability policies of the federal Food and Drug Administration regarding the donation of blood by men who have had sex with another man.

AJR 51 (2013-2014) - Relative to Sickle Cell Anemia Awareness Month.

Sickle Cell Anemia Awareness Month

Cheryl Brown / The bill has become law (chaptered).

This measure would recognize the month of September 2014, as Sickle Cell Anemia Awareness Month in California, and would urge the President and the Congress of the United States to restore and continue funding for sickle cell anemia centers and research to make sickle cell anemia and other genetic hemoglobin disorders a public health priority.

AB 1014 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 1524 Of, to Amend, Repeal, and Add Section 18250 Of, to Add Section 1542.5 To, and to Add Division 3.2 (Commencing with Section 18100) to Title 2 of Part 6 Of, the Penal Code, and to Amend, Repeal, and Add Section 8105 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Firearms.

Gun violence restraining orders

Nancy Skinner, Das Williams / The bill passed both chambers and has been presented to the governor (enrolled).

(1)Existing law regulates the sale, transfer, possession, and ownership of firearms, including prohibiting specified persons from owning or possessing firearms. Existing law, among other things, generally prohibits a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from owning or possessing a firearm while that order is in effect. This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary… More
(1)Existing law regulates the sale, transfer, possession, and ownership of firearms, including prohibiting specified persons from owning or possessing firearms. Existing law, among other things, generally prohibits a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from owning or possessing a firearm while that order is in effect. This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require a law enforcement officer to serve the order on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located, file a copy of the order with the court, and have the order entered into the computer database system for protective and restraining orders maintained by the Department of Justice. The bill would require the presiding judge of the superior court of each county to designate at least one judge, commissioner, or referee who is required to be reasonably available to issue temporary emergency gun violence restraining orders when the court is not in session. This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require the ex parte order to expire no later than 21 days after the date on the order and would require the court to hold a hearing within 21 days of issuing the ex parte gun violence restraining order to determine if a gun violence restraining order that is in effect for one year should be issued. The bill would require a law enforcement officer or a person at least 18 years of age who is not a party to the action to personally serve the restrained person the ex parte order, if the restrained person can reasonably be located. The bill would authorize a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would authorize the renewal of the order for additional one-year periods and would permit the restrained person to request one hearing to terminate the order during the effective period of the initial order or each renewal period. The bill would require a court, upon issuance of a gun violence restraining order, to order the restrained person to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition in his or her custody or control, or which he or she possesses or owns. The bill would require the local law enforcement agency to retain custody of the firearm or firearms and ammunition for the duration of a gun violence restraining order. The bill would require the court to notify the Department of Justice when any gun violence restraining order has been issued, renewed, dissolved, or terminated. The bill would also require the court, when sending that notice, to specify whether the person subject to the gun violence restraining order was present in court to be informed of the contents of the order or if the person failed to appear. The bill would require proof of service of the order to be entered into the California Restraining and Protective Order System, as specified. The bill would make it a misdemeanor to file a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing, knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass. The bill would also provide that a person who owns or possesses a firearm or ammunition with the knowledge that he or she is prohibited from doing so by a gun violence restraining order is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prohibited from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a 5-year period, commencing upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order. By creating new crimes and by requiring new duties of local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2)Existing law states the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including when the property or things to be seized include a firearm or any other deadly weapon that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, specified persons. This bill would allow a search warrant to be issued when the property or things to be seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order if a prohibited firearm or ammunition or both is possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a gun violence restraining order has been issued, the person has been lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law. The bill would also require the law enforcement officer executing a search warrant issued upon that ground to take custody of any firearm or ammunition that is in the restrained person’s custody or control or possession or that is owned by the restrained person, which is discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search and would provide rules for executing the search warrant when the location to be searched is jointly occupied by the restrained person and one or more other persons. (3)Existing law requires specified law enforcement officers to take temporary custody of any firearm or deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a lawful search when present at the scene of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or physical assault. This bill would apply the requirements described above to law enforcement officers serving a gun violence restraining order. The bill would also apply those requirements when the law enforcement officer is a sworn member of the Department of Justice who is a peace officer. (4)Existing law requires the Department of Justice to request public and private mental hospitals, sanitariums, and institutions to submit to the department information necessary to identify persons who are prohibited from having a firearm because the person has been admitted to a facility, is receiving inpatient treatment, and is a danger to himself, herself, or others. Existing law requires the department to only use the information for certain specified purposes. This bill would additionally authorize the department to use the above-described information to determine the eligibility of a person who is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a gun violence restraining order to acquire, carry, or possess firearms, destructive devices, or explosives. (5)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (6)This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 18250 of the Penal Code, proposed by SB 1154, to be operative only if SB 1154 and this bill are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, and this bill is chaptered last. (7)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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (8)The provisions of this bill would be effective January 1, 2016. Hide

416 times as much $
Support
Oppose

AB 1043 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 75101 of the Public Resources Code, Relating to Groundwater.

Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act

Ed Chau / The bill passed both chambers and has been presented to the governor (enrolled).

The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an initiative statute approved by the voters as Proposition 84 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, makes approximately $5.4 billion in bond funds available for safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, natural resource protection, and park… More
The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, an initiative statute approved by the voters as Proposition 84 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, makes approximately $5.4 billion in bond funds available for safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, natural resource protection, and park improvements. The initiative bond act makes $60,000,000 available to the State Water Resources Control Board for the purpose of loans and grants for projects to prevent or reduce contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water and requires repayment for costs that are subsequently recovered from parties responsible for the contamination. Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health, in collaboration with the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the state board, to develop and adopt regulations governing the repayment of costs that are subsequently recovered from parties responsible for the contamination of groundwater. This bill would eliminate the requirement to develop and adopt regulations and instead would require that costs subsequently recovered from a party responsible for the contamination, as defined, be repaid to the state board and deposited, and separately accounted for, in the Groundwater Contamination Cleanup Project Fund, which this bill would create in the State Treasury. This bill would require moneys in the fund to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the state board for a grant to the grantee that received a grant to prevent or reduce contamination of groundwater pursuant to Proposition 84 and subsequently recovered costs from a responsible party and repaid those costs to the state. This bill would require the state board to disburse the funds upon the approval of an expenditure plan submitted by the grantee. This bill would prohibit the total amount of a grant from the fund and a grant received to prevent or reduce contamination of groundwater pursuant to Proposition 84 from exceeding the grantee’s total costs to cleanup contaminated groundwater or prevent the contamination of groundwater. This bill would require moneys recovered from a responsible party in excess of the amount that may be awarded as a grant to be available from the fund to the state board, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for expenditure on orphan groundwater contamination cleanup projects and would require the state board to consult with the Department of Toxic Substances Control when considering expenditures on orphan groundwater contamination cleanup projects. The bill would authorize the state board, upon appropriation, to use moneys in the fund for its administrative costs and for directly recovering moneys from a party responsible for contamination of groundwater addressed by a grant or loan under Proposition 84, and would require that if moneys from the fund are used for legal costs in directly recovering moneys, the moneys recovered by the judgment in favor of the state board be deposited into the fund. Hide

AB 1147 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 460 Of, and to Add and Repeal Chapter 10.5 (Commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 Of, the Business and Professions Code, and to Amend Section 51034 of the Government Code, Relating to Healing Arts.

Massage therapy

Susan Bonilla, Jimmy Gomez, Chris Holden / The bill passed both chambers and has been presented to the governor (enrolled).

Existing law, until January 1, 2015, provides for the voluntary certification of massage practitioners and massage therapists by the California Massage Therapy Council. Existing law specifies the requirements for the council to issue to an applicant a certificate as a massage practitioner or massage therapist. Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county to impose certain… More
Existing law, until January 1, 2015, provides for the voluntary certification of massage practitioners and massage therapists by the California Massage Therapy Council. Existing law specifies the requirements for the council to issue to an applicant a certificate as a massage practitioner or massage therapist. Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county to impose certain requirements on massage establishments or businesses that are the sole proprietorship of an individual certified pursuant to existing state law or that employ or use only persons who are so certified. Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county to, among other things, adopt reasonable health and safety requirements, as specified, pertaining to those massage establishments or businesses, and to require an applicant for a business license to operate a massage business or establishment to fill out an application that requests relevant information, as specified. This bill would reenact, revise, and recast these provisions to, among other things, establish an interim board of directors to govern the council until September 15, 2015, and provide for the appointment of a new board of directors consisting of 13 members, as specified, whose 4-year terms would begin on that date. The bill would authorize the board to establish fees reasonably related to the costs of providing services and performing its duties, not to exceed $300. The bill would require the board to provide at least 90 days’ advance notice prior to holding a meeting to vote upon a proposal to increase the certification fees, as specified, except as provided. The bill would also require the board to notify certificate holders of a board action that increases those fees. The bill would discontinue the issuance of new massage practitioner certificates after January 1, 2015, except as provided, but would authorize the renewal of massage practitioner certificates issued prior to January 1, 2015. The bill would require that all certificates issued pursuant to these provisions be subject to renewal every 2 years, except as provided. The bill would require the council to develop policies, procedures, rules, or bylaws governing the approval and unapproval of schools that provide education required for certification, as specified. The bill would authorize the council to deny an application for a certificate, or to discipline a certificate holder for a violation of these provisions, as specified. The bill would require the board to exercise its denial or discipline authority by means of fair and reasonable procedures that, among other things, provide the applicant or certificate holder with notice and an opportunity to be heard, as specified. The bill would provide that unprofessional conduct in violation of these provisions includes, among other things, engaging in sexually suggestive advertising related to massage services and engaging in sexual activity while providing massage services for compensation. The bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit a city, county, or city and county from enacting or enforcing an ordinance that conflicts with these provisions or other corresponding specified provisions. However, the bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt or enforce local ordinances that govern zoning, business licensing, or reasonable health and safety requirements for establishments or businesses of a licensed or certified healing arts professional, including a certified massage therapist. The bill would also make clarifying and conforming changes regarding local regulation of massage establishments or businesses. The bill would authorize a court to issue an injunction or to provide any other relief it deems appropriate for violations of these provisions, as specified. The bill would provide that the powers and duties of the council are subject to review by the appropriate committees of the Legislature and would require the council to provide a specified report to these committees on or before June 1, 2016. The bill would provide that these provisions are issues of statewide concern, and therefore applicable statewide. The bill would also provide that its provisions are severable. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2017. Hide

AB 1174 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Sections 1684.5, 1925, and 1944 Of, to Add Section 1926.05 To, and to Add, Repeal, and Add Sections 1753.55 and 1910.5 Of, the Business and Professions Code, and to Add and Repeal Section 128196 of the Health and Safety Code, and to Amend Section 14132.725 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Oral Health.

Dental professionals

Raul Bocanegra, Dan Logue / The bill passed both chambers and has been presented to the governor (enrolled).

(1)Under existing law, the Dental Practice Act, the Dental Board of California licenses and regulates dentists. Existing law creates, within the jurisdiction of the board, a Dental Assisting Council that is responsible for the regulation of dental assistants, registered dental assistants, and registered dental assistants in extended functions and a Dental Hygiene Committee of California, that is… More
(1)Under existing law, the Dental Practice Act, the Dental Board of California licenses and regulates dentists. Existing law creates, within the jurisdiction of the board, a Dental Assisting Council that is responsible for the regulation of dental assistants, registered dental assistants, and registered dental assistants in extended functions and a Dental Hygiene Committee of California, that is responsible for the regulation of registered dental hygienists, registered dental hygienists in alternative practice, and registered dental hygienists in extended functions. Existing law governs the scope of practice for those professionals, and authorizes a dentist to require or permit one of those professionals, referred to as a dental auxiliary, to perform specified duties, including exposing emergency radiographs upon the direction of the dentist, prior to the dentist examining the patient. This bill would add to those specified duties exposing radiographs, as specified, make a dentist responsible to provide a patient or the patient’s representative written notice, including specified contact information and disclosing that the care was provided at the direction of that authorizing dentist, and would prohibit a dentist from concurrently supervising more than a total of 5 dental auxiliaries, as specified. The bill would authorize specified registered dental assistants in extended functions, registered dental hygienists, and registered dental hygienists in alternative practice to determine which radiographs to perform and to place protective restorations, as specified. The bill would require the board to adopt related regulations, and would also require the committee to review proposed regulations and submit any recommended changes to the board for review to establish a consensus. (2)Existing law requires the committee to establish by resolution the amount of the fees that relate to the licensing of a registered dental hygienist, registered dental hygienist in alternative practice, and registered dental hygienist in extended functions. Existing law limits the fee for each review of courses required for licensure that are not accredited to $300. Under existing law, those fees are further limited to the reasonable regulatory cost incurred by the committee. This bill would instead limit the fee for each review or approval of course requirements for licensure or procedures that require additional training to $750. (3)Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including certain dental services, as specified. Existing law provides that, to the extent that federal financial participation is available, face-to-face contact between a health care provider and a patient is not required under the Medi-Cal program for “teleophthalmology and teledermatology by store and forward,” as defined to mean the asynchronous transmission of medical information to be reviewed at a later time by a licensed physician or optometrist, as specified, at a distant site. This bill would additionally provide that face-to-face contact between a health care provider and a patient is not required under the Medi-Cal program for teledentistry by store and forward, as defined. (4)Existing law authorizes the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development to approve Health Workforce Pilot Projects (HWPP) No. 172, as defined. The office has approved operation HWPP No. 172, relating to dental workforce, through December 15, 2014. This bill would extend the operation of HWPP through January 1, 2016. The bill would also delete redundant provisions, and would make conforming changes. Hide

AB 1175 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 486 of the Food and Agricultural Code, Relating to Cooperative Agreements.

Food and agriculture: cooperative agreements: agricultural inspector associates

Raul Bocanegra / The bill passed both chambers and has been presented to the governor (enrolled).

Existing law authorizes the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to enter into cooperative agreements with county boards of supervisors and other specified entities for certain purposes. Existing law prohibits the secretary from entering into a cooperative agreement with a county of the first class for agricultural inspector services if the agreement requires that the county provide year-round… More
Existing law authorizes the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to enter into cooperative agreements with county boards of supervisors and other specified entities for certain purposes. Existing law prohibits the secretary from entering into a cooperative agreement with a county of the first class for agricultural inspector services if the agreement requires that the county provide year-round services unless not less than 66% of the agricultural inspector aids not afforded protections as permanent employees employed under the cooperative agreement are afforded protections as permanent employees under the county’s civil service or other personnel system. This bill additionally would prohibit the secretary from entering into a cooperative agreement with a county of the first class for agricultural inspector services unless not less than 75% of the agricultural inspector associates not afforded protections as permanent employees employed under the cooperative agreement are afforded protections as permanent employees. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for a county of the first class. Hide

AB 1193 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Sections 890.4, 890.6, and 891 Of, to Add Section 885.1 To, and to Repeal Section 891.1 Of, the Streets and Highways Code, Relating to Bikeways.

Bikeways

Phil Ting / The bill passed both chambers and has been presented to the governor (enrolled).

(1)Existing law defines “bikeway” for certain purposes to mean all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. Existing law categorizes bikeways into 3 classes of facilities. This bill would additionally categorize cycle tracks or separated bikeways, as specified, as Class IV bikeways. (2)Existing law requires the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with county and city… More
(1)Existing law defines “bikeway” for certain purposes to mean all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. Existing law categorizes bikeways into 3 classes of facilities. This bill would additionally categorize cycle tracks or separated bikeways, as specified, as Class IV bikeways. (2)Existing law requires the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with county and city governments, to establish and update minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of bikeways, and requires the department to establish uniform specifications and symbols regarding bicycle travel and bicycle traffic related matters. Existing law requires all city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted to utilize all of those minimum safety design criteria and uniform specifications and symbols. This bill would revise these provisions to require the department, in cooperation with local agencies and in consultation with the existing advisory committee of the department dedicated to improve access for persons with disabilities, to establish minimum safety design criteria for each type of bikeway with consideration for the safety of vulnerable populations, as specified, and would require the department to publish the new criteria by January 1, 2016. The bill would authorize a local agency to utilize other minimum safety criteria that meet specified conditions if adopted by resolution at a public meeting, as specified. (3)Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to establish, by June 30, 2013, procedures for cities, counties, and local agencies to be granted exceptions from the requirement to use design criteria and uniform specifications for purposes of research, experimentation, testing, evaluation, or verification. Existing law requires the department, by November 1, 2014, to report to the transportation policy committees of both houses of the Legislature the steps that the department has taken to implement those requirements, including, but not limited to, information regarding requests received and granted by the department from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014, inclusive, for those exceptions, and the reasons the department rejected any requests for those exceptions. This bill would repeal those requirements. Hide

AB 1256 (2013-2014) - An Act to Amend Section 1708.8 Of, and to Add Section 1708.9 To, the Civil Code, Relating to Civil Law.

Civil law: privacy: entry and exit of facilities

Richard Bloom / The bill passed both chambers and has been presented to the governor (enrolled).

Existing law provides that a person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or… More
Existing law provides that a person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person. This bill would recast these provisions to instead provide that a person is liable for a physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person. The bill would define “private, personal, or familial activity,” as specified, and provide that this definition applies to physical and constructive invasion of privacy. Existing law provides that it is a crime punishable by a fine not exceeding $500, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a greater fine and a longer period of imprisonment if the defendant has been previously convicted of a specified violation of law, to come into any school building or upon any school grounds, without lawful business thereon, if the defendant’s presence or act interferes with the peaceful conduct of the activities of the school or disrupts the school or its pupils or school activities and the defendant remains there after being asked to leave, reenters or comes upon that place within 7 days of being asked to leave, has otherwise established a continued pattern of unauthorized entry, or willfully or knowingly creates a disruption with the intent to threaten the immediate physical safety of any pupil in preschool, kindergarten, or any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, arriving at, attending, or leaving from school, as specified. This bill would provide that it is unlawful for any person, except a parent or guardian acting toward his or her minor child, to, by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction that is a crime of violence, intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person attempting to enter or exit a facility, or to, by nonviolent physical obstruction, intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person attempting to enter or exit a facility. The bill would define “facility” for purposes of these provisions as any public or private school grounds, or any health facility. The bill would authorize a person aggrieved by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action to enjoin the violation, for compensatory and punitive damages, for injunctive relief, and for the cost of suit and reasonable attorney’s and expert witness’ fees, or with respect to compensatory damages, to elect, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages, as specified. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney to bring a civil action to enjoin a violation of these provisions, for compensatory damages to persons and entities aggrieved by the violation, and for the imposition of a civil penalty, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1708.8 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 2306 that would become operative if this bill and AB 2306 are both enacted and this bill is enacted last. Hide