BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2743|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2743
Author: Nava (D)
Amended: 7/15/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 6/15/10
AYES: Corbett, Hancock, Leno
NOES: Harman, Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 63-7, 5/13/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Real property: rentals: animals
SOURCE : Paw Project
DIGEST : This bill prohibits a landlord that allows
tenants or occupants to have animals on the premises from
doing any of the following: (1) advertising the property
in a way that discourages an individual from applying
because their animal is not declawed or devocalized, (2)
refusing to allow, negotiate, or make the property
available for occupancy because of a person's refusal to
declaw or devocalize an animal, (3) requiring a tenant or
occupant to declaw or devocalize an animal that is allowed
on the premises, (4) giving preferential treatment to a
person because their animal is declawed or devocalized, or
(5) discriminating in the terms of the occupancy, or
provision of services, because a person owns an animal that
has not been declawed or devocalized.
CONTINUED
AB 2743
Page
2
This bill imposes a civil penalty of $2,500 per animal for
every violation that results in the declawing or
devocalizing of an animal, and a $1,000 penalty for every
violation that does not result in the declawing or
devocalizing of an animal. This bill permits a person
harmed by a violation, or a 501(c)(3) corporation that is
either dedicated to the protection of animals or whose
mission includes the protection of fair housing laws, to
enforce that penalty.
Senate Floor Amendments of 7/15/10 make a
technical/clarifying change.
ANALYSIS : Existing law prohibits any person from
performing, or otherwise procuring or arranging for the
performance of, surgical claw removal, declawing,
onychectomy, or tendonectomy on any cat that is a member of
an exotic or native wild cat species, and from otherwise
altering such a cat's toes, claws, or paws to prevent the
normal function of the cat's toes, claws, or paws, unless
the procedure is performed solely for a therapeutic
purpose. (Pen. Code Sec. 597.6.)
Existing law generally prohibits discrimination and related
conduct with respect to the rental or sale of housing
accommodations on the basis of a person's race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, ancestry, familial status, and other factors.
(Gov. Code Sec. 12955.)
Existing law generally regulates the terms and conditions
of residential tenancies and governs the obligations of
tenants and landlord under a lease or tenancy. (Civ. Code
Sec. 1940 et seq.)
This bill prohibits any person or corporation that
occupies, owns, manages, or provides services in connection
with any real property, including the individual's or
corporation's agents or successors-in-interest, from doing
any of the following if they allow an animal on the
premises:
1. Advertise, through any means, the availability of real
property for occupancy in a manner designed to
CONTINUED
AB 2743
Page
3
discourage application for occupancy of that real
property because the applicant's animal has not been
declawed or devocalized.
2. Refuse to allow the occupancy of any real property,
refuse to negotiate the occupancy of any real property,
or to otherwise make unavailable or deny to any other
person the occupancy of any real property because of
that person's refusal to declaw or devocalize any
animal.
3. Require any tenant or occupant of real property to
declaw or devocalize any animal allowed on the premises.
4. Give preferential treatment in terms of the right of
occupancy or the provision of services to another person
because that person owns an animal that has been
declawed or devocalized.
5. Discriminate in terms of the occupancy or the provision
of services against another person because that person
owns an animal that has not been declawed or
devocalized.
This bill provides that nothing in the bill shall prevent
the inclusion, in an occupancy agreement, of a provision
that a present or potential occupant may not declaw or
devocalize any animal that will be allowed on the premises.
This bill confers standing to enforce the bill's provisions
on any person harmed by a violation, or an organization
formed in compliance with Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code that is dedicated to the protection of animals
or whose mission includes the protection of fair housing
laws. This bill also provides that a person or
organization may sue for declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, or for monetary relief as provided below.
This bill provides that, in addition to any other penalty,
a violation of the bill that results in the declawing or
devocalizing of an animal shall result in a civil penalty
of not more than $2,500, per animal, to be paid to the
person whose animal was declawed or devocalized in
violation, or to a 501(c)(3) organization that is
CONTINUED
AB 2743
Page
4
authorized to bring an action.
This bill additionally provides that a violation that does
not result in the declawing or devocalizing of an animal
shall result in a civil penalty of not more than $1,000, to
be paid to the plaintiff.
This bill defines animal, application for occupancy, claw,
declawing, devocalizing, nontherapeutic, and owner.
This bill also enacts various uncodified findings and
declarations regarding the effects of declawing and
devocalizing.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/4/10)
Paw Project (source)
California Apartment Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
City of West Hollywood
Nolan-Taft Management
United Animal Nations
Western Center on Law & Poverty
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/4/10)
California Veterinary Medical Association
The Animal Council
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"Eight local governments in California have recently banned
the practice of cat declawing (Berkeley, Beverly Hills,
Burbank, Culver City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa
Monica, West Hollywood), recognizing the practice as
inhumane. And many governments at all levels have banned
the practice of devocalization. Nonetheless, a search of
rental listings throughout California produces a number of
properties with landlords and managers requiring that
potential owners will be considered only with declawed cats
or devocalized dogs . . . both of these practices can have
unintended consequences for property managers, physical
CONTINUED
AB 2743
Page
5
complications for animals, and emotional and financial
consequences for pet owners."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Animal Council, in
opposition, contends, "Amending the well understood word
"debark" - simply reducing volume of barking - to the term
"devocalize" being used by political opponents of this
lawful veterinary procedure leads to inaccurate
presumptions that a dog would be rendered silent. Rather
debarked dogs retain a wide range of noise making abilities
that can be annoying or disturbing to the legal public
nuisance level in residential settings and [result in] law
enforcement action against the owner and dog. Intentional
use of other than plain language in legislation is
troubling and problematic. Also, because pet keeping
tenants are not a legally protected class, granting
standing to enforce and obtain their own civil penalties to
certain organizations only increases the incentive for
landlords to bar all pets rather than risk the costs of
dealing with adversarial, sometimes ideologically inclined
organizations not otherwise interested in a party [or] the
tenancy. Lack of or loss of rental housing is a major
relinquishment risk for pets, [such] that AB 2743 . . .
creates additional barriers to rental housing for pet
owners and new disincentives to landlords to individually
negotiate pet rentals either at the beginning of or during
tenancy."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Emmerson,
Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller,
Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello,
Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, John
A. Perez
NOES: Anderson, Conway, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Harkey,
Logue
NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Cook, DeVore, Hagman,
CONTINUED
AB 2743
Page
6
Jeffries, Knight, Norby, Silva, Skinner, Vacancy
RJG:do 8/4/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED