BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                         Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
                              2013-2014 Regular Session


          AB 1858 (Perea)
          As Amended June 15, 2014
          Hearing Date: June 24, 2014
          Fiscal: No
          Urgency: No
          RD


                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                        Commercial law: secured transactions

                                      DESCRIPTION  

          This bill would specify that for the purposes of filing a  
          Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 financing statement where the  
          debtor is an individual, the financing statement sufficiently  
          provides the name of the debtor only if it reflects the name  
          that is on the individual's most current driver's license, or,  
          if the person does not have a driver's license, only if the  
          financing statement provides the individual name of the debtor  
          or the surname and first personal name of the debtor.

                                      BACKGROUND  

          A "security interest" is a creditor's interest in property  
          (usually called "collateral") to satisfy a debt in the event  
          that the debtor defaults.  In other words, a security interest  
          is the creditor's right to have the secured property sold to  
          satisfy the debt owed by the debtor.  In order to enforce that  
          security interest in court and potentially against other  
          creditors, the security interest must have been properly created  
          and perfected ("perfection" is the process of validating any  
          legal document or interest by properly executing it and then  
          filing it with the correct public authority, essentially putting  
          the world on notice that an enforceable security interest exists  
          on that property), and have priority against other security  
          interests.  

          Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) generally governs  
          security interests in personal property.  This Article was  
                                                                (more)



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 2 of ?



          vastly rewritten and modernized by the Uniform Law Commission  
          (ULC, formerly the National Conference of Commissioners on  
          Uniform State Laws, or NCCUSL) in the late 1990s.  As a whole,  
          the new Article 9 simplified and clarified the rules for  
          creation, perfection, priority and enforcement of a security  
          interest.  Every state has adopted Article 9 as revised, and  
          California's revised Article 9 (called "Division 9 of the  
          Commercial Code") took effect on July 1, 2001.  (See AB 45  
          (Sher, Ch. 991, Stats. 1999).)   
          Subsequent to the enactment of AB 45 in 1999, the ULC has  
          adopted additional amendments based upon experiences with  
          respect to filing issues and other matters that arose in  
          practice following a decade of experience with the prior version  
          of the Article ("the 2010 amendments").  The ULC's goal was to  
          have every state and territory adopt the 2010 amendments to  
          Article 9 by July 31, 2013.  Last year, AB 502 (Wagner, Ch. 531,  
          Stats. 2013) was enacted, adopting within California's Division  
          9, with a delayed operative date of July 1, 2014, those changes  
          that were made to the UCC Article 9 by the ULC.  One issue,  
          however, was ultimately left unresolved by AB 502: whether  
          California would adopt Alternative A or Alternative B--or  
          neither-with respect to the issue of the sufficiency of the  
          debtor's name on the financial statement.  Alternative A  
          mandates that if a debtor has an unexpired driver's license, the  
          correct name of the debtor can only be the name as it appears on  
          the driver's license.  If the debtor does not have an unexpired  
          driver's license, then either the debtors' individual name" or  
          the surname and first personal name of the debtor may serve as  
          the correct name for filing purposes.  Alternative B allows for  
          three possible name constructions, all of which would be correct  
          for purposes of the rule: (1) the debtor's name on the driver's  
          license, the use of which is not mandatory; (2) the debtor's  
          individual name; or (3) the debtor's surname and first personal  
          name. 

          While AB 502 originally included language to incorporate  
          Alternative A into California law, the provision was ultimately  
          taken out before the bill was heard in this Committee due to  
          concerns by a prior policy committee with respect to potential  
          for discrimination. It appears that at this time, 37 states have  
          elected Alternative A, while a handful of others have elected  
          Alternative B.  California, having adopted neither of these  
          rules, provides that a financing statement sufficiently provides  
          the name of the debtor, in the case where the debtor is an  
          individual, if the financing statement provides either of the  
          following: (1) the individual name of the debtor; or (2) the  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 3 of ?



          surname and the personal name of the debtor (this second option,  
          safe harbor, was adopted by AB 502).   

          This bill, sponsored by the California Bankers Association,  
          would effectively implement Alternative A into Division 9 of  
          California's Commercial Code.  The bill includes language that  
          seeks to address any concerns relating to discrimination. 

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
          1.    Existing law  , the Uniform Commercial Code-Secured  
            Transactions division, governs security interests in personal  
            property.  (Com. Code Sec. 9101 et seq. (Division 9).)
             
            Existing law  specifies rules for the perfection of and  
            priority given to a security interest.  (Com. Code Sec. 9301  
            et seq.)  Existing law provides that a security interest  
            perfected pursuant to the law of the jurisdiction in which the  
            debtor is located, as specified, remains perfected until the  
            earliest of any of the following: 
                 the time perfection would have ceased under the law of  
               that jurisdiction; 
                 the expiration of four months after a change of the  
               debtor's location to another jurisdiction; or
                 the expiration of one year after a transfer of  
               collateral to a person that thereby becomes a debtor and is  
               located in another jurisdiction.  (Com. Code Sec. 9316(a).)

             Existing law  generally provides that a financing statement  
            (the filing of which is necessary to perfect a security  
            interest in collateral) is sufficient only if it satisfies all  
            of the following conditions:
                 it provides the name of the debtor;
                 it provides the name of the secured party or a  
               representative of the secured party; and
                 it indicates the collateral covered by the financing  
               statement.  (Com. Code Sec. 9502(a).)

             Existing law  provides that a financing statement sufficiently  
            provides the name of an individual debtor only if the  
            financing statement provides either of the following:
                 the individual name of the debtor; or
                 the surname and first personal name of the debtor.   
               (Com. Code Sec. 9503.)

             This bill  would, instead, provide that a financing statement  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 4 of ?



            sufficiently provides the name of the debtor only if it does  
            so in accordance with the following rule:
                 if the debtor is an individual to whom the Department of  
               Motor Vehicles (DMV) has issued a driver's license that has  
               not expired or an identification card that has not expired,  
               only if the financing statement provides the name of the  
               individual indicated on that driver's license or  
               identification card ("driver's license rule"); or
                 if the debtor is an individual to whom the above does  
               not apply, only if the financing statement provides the  
               individual name of the debtor or the surname and first  
               personal name of the debtor ("safe harbor").

             This bill  would provide that if the DMV has issued to an  
            individual more than one driver's licenses or identification  
            cards of a kind described above, the relevant driver's license  
            for the above propose refers to the most recently issued  
            license or card.

             This bill  would provide for the above purposes, "driver's  
            license" includes an original driver's license issued by the  
            DMV to a person who is unable to submit satisfactory proof  
            that the applicant's presence in the United States is  
            authorized under federal law if he or she meets all other  
            qualifications for licensure and provides satisfactory proof  
            to the department of his or her identity and California  
            residency.
           
           2.    Existing law  , the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all  
            persons in California are free and equal, and regardless of a  
            person's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national  
            origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information,  
            marital status, or sexual orientation, everyone is entitled to  
            the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,  
            privileges, or services in all business establishments.  (Civ.  
            Code Sec. 51.)

             This bill  would provide that, subject to the last sentence of  
            this paragraph, it is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights  
            Act for a secured party or proposed secured party to decline  
            to provide credit to a debtor or proposed debtor, or offer to  
            make the terms and conditions of the credit less favorable to  
            the debtor or proposed debtor if (A) that decision was based  
            on the fact that the debtor's name to be included on the  
            financing statement is or would be that provided under the  
            safe harbor to the driver's license rule, above, and (B) all  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 5 of ?



            elements that would be required to establish a claim for  
            violation of Unruh (including any elements relating to  
            motivation or state of mind) are established. Any affirmative  
            defenses that would be available to a claim under Unruh would  
            be affirmative defenses to a claim under this paragraph.

          3.    Existing law  provides transitional provisions that govern  
            the effect and priority given to securities perfected prior to  
            or after the operative date of the 2001 changes to Division 9,  
            as well as for those security interests perfected prior to or  
            after the 2010 changes to Division 9.  (Com. Code Secs. 9701  
            et seq., 9801 et seq.)

             This bill  would include similar transitional provisions for  
            these 2014 amendments that govern the effect and priority  
            given to securities perfected prior to or after the operative  
            date of this bill.  For example, the transitional provisions  
            would provide: 
                 The changes to this division made this bill become  
               operative on January 1, 2015.
                 This bill's transitional provisions apply to a security  
               interest only to the extent that, with respect to such  
               security interest, both of the following apply:
               o      a debtor is an individual; and
               o      a financing statement filed before January 1, 2015,  
                 provides the name of an individual as a debtor.
                 Except as otherwise provided the bill's transitional  
               provisions for the 2014 amendments, the changes to this  
               division made by this bill apply to a transaction or lien  
               within its scope, even if the transaction or lien was  
               entered into or created before January 1, 2015.
                 The changes to this division made by this bill do not  
               affect an action, case, or proceeding commenced before  
               January 1, 2015.
                 The provision above relating to the anti-discrimination  
               language as added by this bill applies only with respect to  
               events occurring on or after January 1, 2015.
                 A security interest that is a perfected security  
               interest immediately before January 1, 2015, is a perfected  
               security interest under this division as amended by this  
               act if, as of January 1, 2015, the applicable requirements  
               for attachment and perfection under this division as of  
               that date are satisfied without further action.
                 A security interest that is an unperfected security  
               interest immediately before January 1, 2015, becomes a  
               perfected security interest as follows:
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 6 of ?



               o      without further action, on January 1, 2015, if the  
                 applicable requirements for perfection under Division 9  
                 as amended by this bill are satisfied before or at that  
                 time; and
               o      when the applicable requirements for perfection are  
                 satisfied if the requirements are satisfied after that  
                 time.
                 The changes to this division made by this bill determine  
               the priority of conflicting claims to the collateral.  
               However, if the relative priorities of the claims were  
               established before those changes become effective and  
               operative on January 1, 2015, this division as it existed  
               before those changes become effective and operative  
               determines priority. 

                                        COMMENT
           
          1.    Stated need for the bill  

          According to the author: 

            Banks and other lenders provide loans to individual borrowers,  
            loans which are frequently business purpose loans to sole  
            proprietorships secured by accounts receivable, inventory and  
            equipment. To obtain a priority security interest in such  
            collateral, the secured creditor most often has to file a  
            Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) financing statement in the state  
            where the borrower is located.

            The UCC requires that the secured party identify the "name of  
            the debtor" on the financing statement.

            When the borrower is an entity such as a corporation,  
            determining the name is relatively easy, as there is an  
            organic record of that name within the state where the entity  
            was formed. For example, with a corporation that is a  
            borrower, its name for filing purposes would be derived from  
            the name listed in its filed Articles of Incorporation. But  
            when lending to a sole proprietorship (an individual), the  
            secured party has little statutory guidance as to the source  
            for that name. Is it the name appearing on a tax return, a  
            birth certificate, a social security card, a passport, a  
            marriage license, a business card, a driver's license or a  
            state identification card?

            Therein lies the problem for secured creditors today. Article  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 7 of ?



            9 of the UCC does not clearly define what the name of an  
            individual debtor is for these purposes. Lenders struggle to  
            determine what name to file upon and also what name or names  
            to search for in order to identify other secured parties who  
            might have filed before them.

            AB 1858 would require the lenders to use the name indicated on  
            the borrower's driver's license when they file a Uniform  
            Commercial Code (UCC) financing statement. If the borrower  
            does not have a driver's license, then it would be filed with  
            the first name and surname. This is known as Alternative A. 
            Alternative A states that the name on a financing statement  
            filed against an individual debtor will only be sufficient if  
            it provides the name indicated on the debtor's driver's  
            license (if the debtor does not have an unexpired driver's  
            license, then it is to provide the individual name or the  
            surname and first personal name).

          2.    Sufficiency of the debtor's name on a financing statement  

          In 1990, the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform  
          Commercial Code, with the support of its sponsors, the American  
          Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on  
          Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL, now known as the Uniform Law  
          Commission (ULC)), established a committee to study Article 9 of  
          the UCC and to make recommendations to the Board.  In 1992, the  
          study committee recommended that the Board create a drafting  
          committee to reorganize the UCC Article 9 and recommended  
          various changes. The drafting committee met 15 times between  
          1993 and 1998, until the sponsors (ALI and the NCCUSL) approved  
          the new, revised Article 9.  However, the ULC did not reach  
          consensus on the appropriate, and uniform, way to address the  
          question of the sufficiency of the debtor's name on a financing  
          statement.  Instead, the ULC provided two options (arguably with  
          a third option of choosing neither alternative): Alternative A  
          and Alternative B.  Alternative A requires that, at the risk of  
          being found unperfected, the name presented on the financing  
          statement must be exactly as shown on the debtor's driver's  
          license.  The debtor's individual name, or his or her surname  
          and first name can only be used in the absence of an unexpired  
          driver's license.  Alternative B permits the use of the debtor's  
          driver's license name, while also allowing for use of the  
          debtor's actual (or individual) name, or his or her surname and  
          first personal name. 

          Generally, Article 9 applies to any transaction, regardless of  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 8 of ?



          its form, that creates a security interest in personal property  
          or fixtures by contract.  The filing of a financing statement is  
          necessary to perfect a security interest and the statement is  
          sufficient only if it satisfies certain conditions, including  
          the name of the debtor.  Thus, the issue of the debtor's name is  
          critical, because if the financing statement does not provide  
          the so-called "correct" name of the debtor, then it does not  
          perfect the security interest.  

          While it might seem as though that every person only has one  
          correct name, it is, in reality, not that simple.  An individual  
          debtor in a security interest transaction could be known by  
          various names: a birth certificate name, driver's license name,  
          passport name, or even a nickname.  Moreover, names can be  
          changed: hyphens added or removed, middle names dropped, maiden  
          names made middle names, maiden names dropped or readopted-the  
          list goes on.  If a creditor does not identify the name  
          correctly and the security interest is thereby not perfected,  
          someone else might perfect a security interest in the same  
          property of the debtor and gain priority over the original  
          creditor's security interest by the time the error is fixed.   
          Under California law, as amended by AB 502 (Wagner, Ch. 531,  
          Stats. 2013) operative July 1, the name on the financing  
          statement must be (1) individual name of the debtor, or (2) the  
          surname and the personal name of the debtor.  This bill now  
          seeks to implement Alternative A as the rule in California for  
          UCC Division 9 purposes.  

          3.   Arguments for and against Alternative A
          
          In support of the bill, the California Bankers Association, the  
          sponsor of this bill, and a coalition of supporters, writes: 

            Alternative A is the most effective, simple and certain method  
            for creditors to identify the name of an individual commercial  
            borrower and provides a preferred method for the secured  
            lending community to follow when filing and conducting  
            searches. Alternative A ensures not only perfection, but also  
            lien priority. A core mission of the NCCUSL is uniformity of  
            state laws, an important goal shared by lenders that operate  
            in multiple states.  Accordingly, thirty-seven states have  
            enacted Alternative A.

            Importantly, the driver's license is a primary document used  
            to verify an individual borrower's identity under federal  
            "Know Your Customer" requirements promulgated through the U.S.  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 9 of ?



            Patriot Act. Given the nature of these commercial loan  
            transactions involving a business owner, it is highly unlikely  
            that those customers will lack a driver's license.  
            Notwithstanding, Alternative A provides a solution in those  
            circumstances where a business borrower cannot obtain or  
            produce a driver's license.  In this instance, the financing  
            statement is deemed sufficient if filed under the debtor's  
            first personal name and surname.

            If enacted, this measure minimizes the current documentation  
            needed to verify the identity of a business borrower,  
            improving the customer experience. The overall number of  
            financing statements filed with the Secretary of State will  
            decline reducing the filing cost associated with these  
            commercial loan transactions while decluttering the current  
            filing system.  Meanwhile, creditors will achieve greater  
            efficiency.

          In opposition to the bill, a group of 10 law professors who  
          teach commercial or debtor/creditor law across eight law  
          schools, including Boalt (UC Berkeley), UC Hastings, UCLA,  
          Loyola, Santa Clara, among others, argue that the current rule,  
          which has been in place for over 50 years, in conjunction with  
          the added safe harbor (i.e. surname and first name of the  
          individual) that is to go into effect on July 1, 2014, per AB  
          502 (Wagner, Ch. 531, Stats. 2013), is the best rule for  
          California.  The professors write that, in contrast to other  
          states,  "[n]o 'fix' is needed in California because we already  
          have an excellent filing and searching practice that does not  
          present the problems which the large banks assert require a  
          drastic change of law, a change likely to present difficulties  
          for small financial institutions, small law firms and solo  
          practitioners, sellers of equipment and sellers of inventory to  
          retailers, and ultimately their borrowers, clients and buyers,  
          especially SME's [small and medium enterprises]."  Moreover,  
          they note that AB 60 (Alejo, Ch. 524, Stats. 2013) was adopted  
          just last year, allowing undocumented people to apply for a  
          driver's license and urge caution against moving too fast in  
          California: 

            The applications may trigger changes in the Department of  
            Motor Vehicles' name presentation practices to contend with  
            Hispanic surname practices, matronymics/ patronymics  
            presentation, accent marks, tildes, multi- element names,  
            Asian name presentation practices and other issues too  
            numerous to mention, as well as those that we cannot  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 10 of ?



            anticipate.  If the legislature now ties UCC names to DMV  
            names, decisions made by DMV officials, whose primary concerns  
            are with law enforcement and with efficiency and costs of  
            operating the DMV system, will be imposing changes on a UCC  
                                     system that exists for entirely different purposes that are of  
            no concern to them.  Moreover, long-standing UCC filing and  
            searching practices may change in unpredictable ways. The  
            overall result of imposing the license name rule may well be  
            to introduce uncertainty under the UCC and require judicial  
            clarification.  That in turn may affect the availability and  
            cost of secured lending in California and generate malpractice  
            litigation.  

          They believe that since AB 60 does not go into effect until  
          January 1, 2015, this is the absolute wrong time to impose the  
          driver's license name rule on UCC practice.  "At the very least,  
          the Legislature should postpone all further change to UCC  
          [Section] 9-503 and allow the law on the books to continue as  
          is.  If the large banks continue to urge use of the license as  
          the source for the UCC name, the Legislature should consider   
          that in two or three years, after the effects of AB 60 are known  
          and after a careful study.  Some of us would be willing to serve  
          on a study group and undertake to report to this Committee."

          Professor Harry Sigman, in opposition, adds that the proponents  
          have understated who the bill would effect and overstated the  
          benefits of Alternative A.  While one might argue that the  
          proponents of this bill are the parties who stand to lose if  
          they get the name wrong for the purpose of perfection, Professor  
          Sigman points out that commercial filers such as the big banks  
          are not the only filers who would be affected by this  
          bill-indeed, "UCC Article 9 is used by sellers of equipment,  
          sellers of small businesses, parties who are seeking to secure  
          the promises of counterparties in various business transactions,  
          divorces, child custody arrangements," as well as by local banks  
          and credit unions, and by bigger national banks, among others.   
          Accordingly, the proposed change to move California to a  
          driver's license rule could cause complications for these other  
          non-commercial, and potentially less-sophisticated, filers.   
          Moreover, Professor Sigman challenges both the stated need for  
          the bill, and the benefits of cost-efficiency and uniformity  
          that are presumed to result from adoption of Alternative A.  To  
          this end, he explains that whereas in other states, a search of  
          "B. Obama" would only disclose an exact match for "B. Obama,"  
          causing the filer to search all possible variations  
          individually, at additional cost, in California, the initial "B.  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 11 of ?



          Obama" search would disclose all fillings against any variation  
          of the name "B. Obama."  Furthermore, the professor argues that  
          even under Alternative A, no well-advised prospective secured  
          creditor would search only under the driver's license name, as  
          both California state tax liens and judgment liens are filed in  
          the Secretary of State's office and indexed with the UCC  
          financing statements-neither of which are required to use the  
          debtor's driver's license name.  

          Staff notes that Alternative B would arguably include some  
          flexibility as to what is the "correct" debtor's name, which  
          might address some of the oppositions concerns.  That being  
          said, the proponents of AB 1858 would argue that Alternative B  
          is not preferable as it provides less certainty than Alternative  
          A as it allows more than one name of an individual to be used on  
          a financing statement-which means that lenders who want to  
          obtain a first priority security interest will continue to face  
          uncertainty as to what names to search under.  Moreover, they  
          argue that Alternative B does not guarantee that filing under  
          the driver's license name will give the lender priority, because  
          prior filings made by other lenders under other names may be  
          sufficient under Alternative B.  So, under Alternative B,  
          lenders can be expected to continue to deal with additional  
          time, confusion, and cost in defining an individual name for the  
          purposes of filing and searching.

          4.   Anti-discrimination language 
           
          California law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all  
          persons are free and equal, and that regardless of a person's  
          sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,  
          disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital  
          status, or sexual orientation, everyone is entitled to the full  
          and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or  
          services in all business establishments.  (Civ. Code Sec.  
          51(a).)

          This bill would provide that it is a violation of the Unruh  
          Civil Rights Act for a secured party or proposed secured party  
          to decline to provide credit to a debtor or proposed debtor, or  
          offer to make the terms and conditions of the credit less  
          favorable to the debtor or proposed debtor if (A) that decision  
          was based on the fact that the debtor's name to be included on  
          the financing statement is or would be that provided under the  
          safe harbor to the driver's license rule, above, and (B) all  
          elements that would be required to establish a claim for  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 12 of ?



          violation of Unruh (including any elements relating to  
          motivation or state of mind) are established. Any affirmative  
          defenses that would be available to a claim under Unruh would be  
          affirmative defenses to a claim under this paragraph.

          As currently drafted, the bill would require, for the first time  
          in statute, that for there to be a violation of Unruh, the  
          plaintiff must prove any elements relating to motivation or to  
          state of mind.  Staff notes that this is not language drawn from  
          the Unruh statute, nor is such language referenced in any other  
          statute in relation to potential Unruh violations.  Even if  
          those elements would be necessary to a successful Unruh action,  
          to include this language in the proposed statute could be  
          misleading.  

          Moreover, as currently drafted, there is a potential concern  
          that the bill could inadvertently be read to limit what would  
          constitute an Unruh violation.  Insofar as discrimination is a  
          concern, that concern potentially arises out of the decision to  
          decline credit or to make the terms and conditions less  
          favorable based upon the fact that the person either did not  
          have a valid driver's license, declined to provide their  
          driver's license for the purposes of identification, or  
          presented a driver's license issued under last year's AB 60 (see  
          Comment 2 above) indicating that he or she is an undocumented  
          immigrant.  The violation could feasibly also arise because the  
          detrimental decision is made based on a presumption by the  
          creditor (or his or her agent) that any person who claims to not  
          have a license is actually a person with an undocumented  
          immigrant's license or is otherwise an illegal immigrant.  The  
          current language of the bill, however, does not appear to  
          recognize that possibility and the language should therefore be  
          clarified avoid any confusion.  

          Accordingly, the following amendment is suggested to strike  
          reference to motivation or state of mind and to clarify that  
          this bill is not intended to restrict what otherwise constitutes  
          an Unruh violation under existing law: 

             Suggested amendment  : 

            On page 4, starting at line 3, amend the bill to read: "(7)  
            Subject to the  last   following  sentence of this paragraph, it  
            is a violation of Section 51 of the Civil Code for a secured  
            party or proposed secured party to decline to provide credit  
            to a debtor or proposed debtor, or offer to make the terms and  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 13 of ?



            conditions of the credit less favorable to the debtor or  
            proposed debtor if (A) that decision was based on the fact  
            that the debtor's name to be included on the financing  
            statement is or would be that provided under paragraph (5)  
            rather than under paragraph (4), and (B) all elements that  
            would be required to establish a claim for violation of  
            Section 51  (including any elements relating to motivation or  
            state of mind)  are established. Any affirmative defenses that  
            would be available to a claim under Section 51 would be  
            affirmative defenses to a claim under this paragraph.  Nothing  
            in this paragraph shall be construed to alter, expand, limit,  
            or negate any other rights, defenses, or remedies under  
            Section 51.  "

          Staff notes that the bill was also recently amended to include  
          among the transitional provisions for these 2014 amendments to  
          Division 9 a statement to the effect that the  
          anti-discrimination language as added by this bill applies only  
          with respect to events occurring on or after January 1, 2015.   
          Such language is not only unnecessary, as the transitional  
          provisions make clear that the changes under this bill apply as  
          of January 1, 2015, but it could also have an effect of limiting  
          Unruh.  The following amendment is suggested to delete this  
          provision. 

             Suggested amendment  : 

            On page 5, strike lines 32-34, inclusive
             

           Support  :  Association of Financial Development Corporations; Bay  
          Area Council
          California Business Roundtable; California Chamber of Commerce;  
          California Credit Union League; California Independent Bankers;  
          California Mortgage Bankers Association; Latin Business  
          Association; National Federation of Independent Business

           Opposition  :  10 law professors

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  California Bankers Association

           Related Pending Legislation  :  None Known 

           Prior Legislation  :  AB 502 (Wagner, Ch., Stats. 2013) See  
                                                                      



          AB 1858 (Perea)
          Page 14 of ?



          Background.

           Prior Vote  :

          Assembly Floor (Ayes 73, Noes 0)
          Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

                                   **************