Judicial Council Prepares to Repeal COVID-19 Rules on Evictions, Bail
"These rules achieved their goals—to reduce harm, save lives, and help 'flatten the curve' of the pandemic," Martin Hoshino, administrative director of the Judicial Council, said in a statement. "As a result, 51 California counties and our courthouses have started a phased, safe reopening."
June 09, 2020 at 12:40 PM
4 minute read
The Judicial Council is poised to repeal three emergency rules adopted this spring as the COVID-19 pandemic shuttered courtrooms around the state.
The council late Monday released a circulating order that would sunset a freeze on evictions and judicial foreclosures later this summer. A second order would rescind on June 20 a temporary schedule that set bail at $0.
The council will also consider recommending that Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye repeal her order extending the deadline for defendants to be arraigned beyond 48 hours.
"These rules achieved their goals—to reduce harm, save lives and help 'flatten the curve' of the pandemic," Martin Hoshino, administrative director of the Judicial Council, said in a statement. "As a result, 51 California counties and our courthouses have started a phased, safe reopening. A statewide rule no longer serves our need to be flexible and responsive based on local health conditions."
The targeted rules are among 13 adopted hurriedly by the Judicial Council this spring as statewide stay-at-home orders forced court employees, jurors, judges, lawyers and litigants out of courts. An unprecedented executive order signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on March 27 freed judicial branch leaders from traditional restrictions on their statutory authority.
The rules staying evictions and judicial foreclosures were scheduled to stay in effect until 90 days after the governor lifts the pandemic-related state of emergency. The circulating order would end those rules Aug. 3. With courts reopening, judges have more time to handle nonurgent matters, according to a Judicial Council statement.
"Housing policy decisions are usually left to the state Legislature, which was unable to hold sessions during the statewide shelter-in-place order," said Monterey County Superior Court Judge Marla Anderson, who chairs the Judicial Council's legislation committee. "With the Legislature back in session, lawmakers can address any measures needed to protect the homes and businesses of those affected by the pandemic."
Newsom in March signed an executive order authorizing local governments to halt evictions of renters and homeowners who can document pandemic-related hardships. Pending state legislation would pay landlords 80% of rental payments missed by tenants affected by the pandemic, so long as the tenants are not evicted from their homes.
Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, criticized the council's proposed repeal of eviction protections, saying in a statement that "the emergency is not over."
"Allowing renters to be forced from their homes will not only put countless Californians at risk of homelessness, but also threaten the public health of all communities," Chiu said in a statement issued Tuesday. "While the Legislature should step in to address these issues, removing protections for renters and homeowners months before legislative solutions are agreed upon and take effect is ill-conceived and will result in a rush to evict.
The second circulating order would drop the $0 bail schedule, which was originally imposed to reduce jail populations and the spread of COVID-19. Judicial Council staff say the state is expected to begin transferring convicted inmates to jails once again by June 19, easing crowding concerns.
"We urge local courts to continue to use the emergency COVID-19 bail schedules where necessary to protect the health of the community, the courts, and the incarcerated," said Justice Marsha Slough of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, who chairs the executive and planning committee.
Sheriffs around the state have accused the $0 bail schedule of creating a revolving door at local jails.
Council members have until June 10 to vote on the circulating orders.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawsuit Asks California Supreme Court to Expand Use of Electronic Case Recording
4 minute read'We Will Sue ... Immediately': AG Bonta Says He's Ready to Spend $25M Battling Trump
4 minute readDeception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250