BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2244
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2244 (Gatto) - As Amended April 13, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|10 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill prescribes certain limits on fees associated with
electronic filing of court documents. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that a fee imposed by an agent of the court for the
use of a credit card or debit card or for an electronic funds
transfer, may not exceed the costs incurred by the agent in
providing for that payment method, and that fees, if any,
charged by the court, an electronic filing manager, or an
electronic filing service provider to process a payment may
not exceed the actual costs incurred for processing.
AB 2244
Page 2
2)Requires the court, an electronic filing manager, or an
electronic filing service provider to waive processing payment
fees if the court deems the waiver to be appropriate,
including in instances where a party has received a fee
waiver.
3)Requires a court or an entity contracted with a court to
provide a system for acceptance of electronically transmitted
documents to provide a menu of payment options that may
include credit or debit cards, electronic funds transfers,
electronic networks for financial transactions, and payment
methods that do not charge a transaction cost.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Negligible fiscal impact on the courts.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. During the 2013-14, 7.5 million cases were filed
statewide in the superior courts. Given the high volume of
filings in California's courts each year, a party's ability to
file and serve documents electronically significantly improves
the court's capacity to process filings. The Judicial
Council's Court Case Management System (CCMS), among other
things, would have made it easier for parties to file their
legal documents electronically with the courts in all 58
counties.
Due to cost overruns an inadequate project oversight, in March
2012, the Judicial Council terminated the project, which left
many trial courts with failing case management systems. As a
AB 2244
Page 3
result, counties have turned to various private vendors to
provide technology systems to their courts. Generally, these
private technology systems allow for the electronic filing of
documents.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "In some counties, EFSPs
[electronic filing service providers] must pay court filing
fees and e-filing transaction costs with credit cards, and pay
convenience fees to electronic filing managers for the use of
credit cards. While electronic filing represents a major
benefit to the courts and public, how the systems are
implemented can raise policy questions of fair access to the
judicial system. In addition, present law contains a number
of ambiguities which should be resolved as these systems are
being implemented. AB 2244 is intended to address some of
these ambiguities."
Under current law, government entities may accept credit
cards, debit cards, or electronic funds transfers for the
payment of certain government services, including court
filings. Although current law allows a government entity,
including a court, to impose a convenience fee for those
transactions, the government entity may not charge a
convenience fee that exceeds its costs for providing that
payment method.
Consistent with current law, this bill provides that an
electronic filing service provider, who remits funds in order
to complete an electronic filing transaction and acts as an
agent of the court, may not charge a convenience fee that
exceeds the provider's cost to provide that service. In order
to further protect litigants and provide greater clarity about
convenience costs associated with processing payment methods,
this bill also requires that when a trial court adopts rules
for mandatory electronic filing, the fees (if any) that are
charged by the court, an electronic filing manager, or an
AB 2244
Page 4
electronic filing service provider to process a payment may
not exceed the actual costs incurred by the court, manager, or
provider.
In addition, to ensure that litigants with fee waivers have
true access to electronic filing without fees, this bill
prohibits those litigants from being required to pay
transaction processing fees and clarifies existing law to
require an electronic filing service provider to
electronically file a fee-waiver-litigant's documents if that
is the litigant's preferred method. Finally, in order to
protect litigants who may not have access to credit or debit
cards, this bill also requires electronic filing managers to
accept alternative forms of payment.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081