Key Points The California Department of Justice (DOJ) is preparing for increased enforcement of state housing laws, primarily focusing on local governments. The Housing Strike Force announcement is part of an ongoing trend of the state increasing enforcement of state housing laws ...
June 13, 2022 By: Melissa Richards On June 9, 2022, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (CA DFPI) issued its long awaited final regulations implementing SB 1235’s (2018) new early disclosure requirements on commercial financing offers equal to or less than $500,000. The CA DFPI regulations take effect December 9, 2022. The final regulations can be found at Title 10, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations. The link to Chapter 3 is HERE ...
As a follow up to my article on December 4, 2020, reporting that California enacted SB 908 – the Debt Collection Licensing Act, Financial Code Division 25, Sections 100000, et seq., the administering agency Department of Financial Protection and Innovation issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Friday, April 23rd. The proposed regulations for Debt Collection Licensing Act will be installed in Title 10, California Code of Regulations, Subchapter 11 ...
During the 2019 legislative session, California enacted SB 908 - the Debt Collection Licensing Act, Financial Code Division 25, Sections 100000, et seq., requiring consumer debt collectors who are collecting on their own account or the account of others, including debt buyers, to be licensed beginning January 1, 2022 ...
Governor Newsom’s March 4th Executive Order N-25-20, mandates that the “California Health and Human Services Agency [“CHHS”] and the Office of Emergency Services shall identify, and shall otherwise be prepared to make available—including through the execution of any necessary contracts or other agreements and, if necessary, through the exercise of the State’s power to commandeer property—hotels and other places of temporary residence, medical fac
Effective Today, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) will no longer require vaccinated individuals to wear masks in all indoor public settings under its updated Guidance for the Use of Face Masks (Updated Guidance). This effectively lifts the indoor mask mandate in most California counties, both where local officials have aligned with CDPH Guidance, and where officials never issued their own local mask mandate ...
On July 24, 2020, the California Department of Public Health issued a new guidance document for all employers within California, entitled “COVID-19 Employer Playbook For a Safe Reopening ...
On August 31, 2018 California’s legislature passed Senate Bill 1402. Unless vetoed by Governor Brown on or before September 30, SB 1402 will allow shippers to be held jointly liable for state labor and employment law violations by port trucking companies. The bill, which was authored by Senator Lara (D-Bell Gardens), is aimed at ending the purported “exploitation of truck drivers who haul cargo from California’s ports ...
Key Points California Legislature passes SB 288, which adds statutory CEQA exemptions for bicycle and mass transit projects. Extends CEQA Exemption for bicycle-related highway projects from Jan. 1, 2021 to Jan. 1, 2030. Relates only to projects for which the lead agency and the entity carrying out the project are public agencies. The California Legislature passed SB 288 on Aug. 31, 2020 ...
Key Points The State Assembly and Senate have both passed AB 361 and AB 339, two bills aimed at addressing Brown Act teleconferencing requirements in the COVID-19 landscape. The Governor is expected to sign or veto the bills before October 1 ...
Recently, California legislators passed SB 954 creating a new pre-mediation requirement – the prospective Mediation Disclosure. "As soon as reasonably possible" before agreeing to mediate, attorneys are to present to clients a Mediation Disclosure affirmatively explaining mediation's confidentiality restrictions, execution of which acknowledges the client's understanding of the restriction's impact ...
California has enacted a sweeping tough new privacy law ...
September 29, 2021 By: Jennifer Guerrero The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) established a new state privacy regulatory agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“Agency”), which is responsible for issuing regulations implementing the CPRA (along with enforcement authority) ...
Article PDFJust when businesses thought they had figured out their Proposition 65 compliance strategies, the State of California, through the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), has proposed a substantial change that will drastically limit the use of the short-form safe harbor warning first authorized in 2018 ...
At its Voting Meeting today the Commission adopted a new standard offer contract available to any Qualifying Facility (QF) of 20 megawatts or less seeking to sell electricity to a Commission-jurisdictional utility pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). Under PURPA, Commission-jurisdictional utilities must provide QFs the option of executing any existing PURPA contract for which they qualify ...
Key Points Employees again are entitled to up to 80 hours of employer-paid sick leave for COVID-related absences through September 30, 2022, retroactive from January 1, 2022 Vaccine related absences are now covered absences for entitlement to paid sick leave In certain instances, employers may require employees to provide documentation of COVID test results for themselves or family members in order to receive the paid sick leave On February 9, 2022, Governor Newsom signed Senat
SB 977 was passed by the California Senate on June 26, 2020. If the bill is passed by the Assembly and becomes law, it will require health care systems, private equity groups, hedge funds, and academic medical centers to obtain advance approval by the California Attorney General for substantially all acquisitions or change of control transactions with health care facilities and providers ...
On September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom approved and signed SB 2 and SB 16.1 SB 2 created a decertification procedure for peace officers and removal/denial of qualified immunity for claims or actions brought under Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Civil Code section 52.1). SB 16 impacts retention of peace officer employment records and access to employment records ...
Key Points A recent order from the Santa Clara County Superior Court suggests that California courts intend to uphold and implement SB 35's goals of fast-tracking housing developments that meet established, objective criteria. California courts will closely scrutinize the objective planning standards cities and local governments utilize in determining whether a project is compliant with local land use criteria and building codes ...
On August 11, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Zolly v. City of Oakland, holding that a group of property owners had pleaded sufficient facts to maintain a challenge to the City’s solid-waste franchise fee, under Article XIII C of the California Constitution, commonly called “Proposition 26 ...
On March 2, 2017, the California Supreme Court determined that when a public employee uses a personal account to communicate about the conduct of public business, the communications are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), if those communications are not otherwise exempt from disclosure. In a unanimous opinion, the Court in City of San Jose v ...
On August 3, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., clarifying the bounds of legitimate competition under California tort and antitrust law. The Court’s ruling generally came down in favor of encouraging competition, reducing claims for tortious interference with contract, and decreasing the risk of litigation arising from normal competitive activity ...
On December 22, 2016, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., Case No. S224853, the California Supreme Court issued a split decision on rest periods. In a decision in which four justices concurred, and two concurred and dissented, in part, the Court held that employers “must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time ...
