BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  April 26, 2016


                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY


                                  Mark Stone, Chair


          AB 2819  
          (Chiu) - As Amended April 18, 2016


                              As Proposed to be Amended


          SUBJECT:  UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEEDINGS: RELEASE OF COURT  
          RECORDS


          KEY ISSUE:  IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE CREDIT HISTORY AND  
          REPUTATION OF INNOCENT TENANTS INVOLVED IN EVICTION PROCEEDINGS,  
          SHOULD TENANTS BE ENTITLED TO HAVE COURT RECORDs OF eviction  
          proceedings KEPT PRIVATE UNLESS THE LANDLORD PREVAILS WITHIN 60  
          DAYS OF HAVING FILED THE LAWSUIT?

                                      SYNOPSIS


          Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161.2, court unlawful  
          detainer records are withheld from public access (or "masked")  
          by the court clerk for 60 days after the date of the filing of  
          the complaint.  At the end of the 60-day masking period, unless  
          the tenant has already prevailed in the eviction, the record  
          becomes public and is available to credit agencies, landlord  
          registries, and others.  


          According to the author, once these unlawful detainer records  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  2





          become public, tenant screening companies and credit reporting  
          agencies capture and publish personal identifying information  
          regarding tenants who are named as defendants in those records.   
          This information appears in published lists, known as unlawful  
          detainer registries, and on tenants' credit reports.  So long as  
          it is accurate, the fact that a tenant was once sued for  
          unlawful detainer is publicly available for up to seven years  
          and cannot be challenged under federal or state laws governing  
          consumer credit reporting.  Because this information is made  
          public, regardless of tenants ultimately prevail in these  
          proceedings, the names of thousands of innocent tenants whose  
          cases were favorably resolved after the 60-day masking period  
          appear on unlawful detainer registries. Many of these tenants  
          successfully settle, secure a dismissal, or win at trial.  But  
          for resolving their cases after the 60-day period, they would  
          have escaped negative credit reporting.  In other instances,  
          unlawful detainer complaints are filed against tenants but never  
          served.  Because these complaints are never dismissed, the  
          tenant's names are publicly released after 60 days and negative  
          credit reporting consequences ensue.  Landlords, when attempting  
          to decide between numerous applicants for scarce rental housing,  
          rely on unlawful detainer registries and credit reports, and  
          therefore often choose not to rent to tenants who appear on  
          these registries, even if the tenants were eventually found  
          innocent of unlawful detainer.  As a result, given the statewide  
          housing shortage, these innocent tenants may be shut out of  
          rental markets for up to seven years through no fault of their  
          own.


          This bill, co-sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty  
          and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, seeks to keep  
          court records of eviction lawsuits from becoming public unless  
          the landlord prevails within 60 days of filing the lawsuit.  The  
          bill also establishes a 60-day masking period that is measured  
          from the date when a default or a default judgment is set aside  
          any time after expiration of the first 60-day period.  This  
          provision essentially ensures that the 60-day timeline is reset  
          to begin running when the tenant successfully obtains a default  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  3





          judgment, or a default judgment is set aside.  According to the  
          author, this bill attempts to strike a balance between the  
          interests of protecting the credit records of innocent tenants  
          and allowing landlords and others sufficient access to court  
          records.  The bill is supported by numerous legal aid  
          organizations who report examples of clients whose credit  
          records have been damaged simply by being named as defendants in  
          unlawful detainer cases that were settled but never officially  
          dismissed, or otherwise resolved in a manner in which the  
          landlord did not prevail.  Supporters believe this bill will  
          directly help address the problems reported by their clients  
          arising from the existing masking period rule.  The bill is  
          opposed by several apartment associations who believe that the  
          proposed changes go too far in shielding records of nonpayment  
          of rent from the public.  They contend that this bill will put  
          landlords at risk of renting to serial defaulters, conflicts  
          with California's open records and public access policies, and  
          unfairly keeps rental property owners from knowing the truth  
          about prospective tenants.


          SUMMARY:  Keeps court records in eviction lawsuits from becoming  
          public unless the landlord prevails within 60 days of having  
          filed the lawsuit.  Specifically, this bill:   


          1)Provides that, in unlawful detainer cases, the court clerk  
            shall allow access to civil case records to any person 60 days  
            after the complaint has been filed if the plaintiff prevails  
            in the action within 60 days of the filing of the complaint,  
            in which case the clerk shall allow access to any court  
            records in the action.


          2)Provides that if a default or default judgment is set aside  
            more than 60 days after the complaint has been filed, the  
            above timekeeping rule shall apply as if the complaint has  
            been filed on the date the default or default judgment is set  
            aside.








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  4







          3)Clarifies that these provisions do not prohibit the court from  
            issuing an order that bars access to the court record in an  
            unlawful detainer case if the parties to the action so  
            stipulate.


          4)Revises the definition of "good cause" to include the  
            gathering of evidence by a party to an unlawful detainer  
            action solely for the purpose of making a request for judicial  
            notice pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 452 of the  
            Evidence Code (i.e. judicial notice of an abusive litigant.)


          5)Clarifies that nothing in this act alters any provision of the  
            Evidence Code.


          6)Allows (but does not require) the action to be dismissed by  
            the court without prejudice if 60 days elapse after the  
            complaint is filed and no proof of service of the summons has  
            been filed.  Further clarifies that nothing in this provision  
            shall require a court to dismiss a case.


          EXISTING LAW:   


          1)Provides that, in unlawful detainer proceedings, the court  
            clerk shall allow access to case records to the following  
            persons:
             a)   A party to the action, including a party's attorney.
             b)   Any person who provides the clerk with the names of at  
               least one plaintiff and one defendant and the address of  
               the premises, including the apartment or unit number, if  
               any.
             c)   A resident of the premises who provides the clerk with  
               the name of one of the parties or the case number and shows  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  5





               proof of residency.
             d)   To any person by order of the court on a showing of good  
               cause, as defined.  
             e)   To any other person 60 days after the complaint has been  
               filed, unless a defendant prevails in the action within 60  
               days of the filing of the complaint, in which case the  
               clerk may not allow access to any courts records in the  
               action, except to a party to the action or by court order,  
               as specified.  (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161.2 (a),  
               paragraphs (1) to (5).)


          2)Provides that the court clerk, in addition to observing the  
            above, shall allow access to case records in the case of a  
            unlawful detainer complaint involving residential property  
            based on Section 1161a ("foreclosure eviction") as indicated  
            in the caption of the complaint, to any other person, if 60  
            days have elapsed since the complaint was filed with the  
            court, and, as of that date, judgment against all defendants  
            has been entered for the plaintiff, after a trial.  Further  
            provides that if judgment is not entered under the conditions  
            described above, the clerk shall not allow access to any court  
            records in the action, except as provided.  (Code of Civil  
            Procedure Section 1161.2 (a), paragraph (6).) 
          FISCAL EFFECT:  As currently in print this bill is keyed  
          non-fiscal.


          COMMENTS:  This bill seeks to keep court records in eviction  
          lawsuits private unless the landlord prevails within 60 days of  
          having filed the lawsuit.  The author wishes to find a balance  
          that allows landlords and others sufficient access to court  
          records, but that better protects innocent tenants who may be  
          unfairly shut out of a difficult housing market because of an  
          undeserved black mark on their credit report.  According to the  
          author:


               The recent economic and foreclosure crises have only  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  6





               exacerbated the challenges that low-income households face  
               in securing affordable housing.  The difficulty of securing  
               affordable housing in competitive rental markets is  
               worsened by the existing law governing access to civil case  
               records in unlawful detainer proceedings. Specifically,  
               once unlawful detainer civil case records become public,  
               tenant screening companies and credit reporting agencies  
               capture and publish personal identifying information  
               regarding tenants named as defendants in those records.  
               This information appears in published lists, known as  
               unlawful detainer registries, and on tenants' credit  
               reports. So long as it is accurate, the fact that a tenant  
               was once sued for unlawful detainer is publicly available  
               for up to seven years and cannot be challenged under  
               federal or state laws governing consumer credit reporting.





               The names of thousands of innocent tenants whose cases are  
               resolved only after the 60-day deadline appear on unlawful  
               detainer registries. Many of these tenants successfully  
               settle, secure a dismissal, or win at trial, and would have  
               escaped negative credit reporting if only they had  
               prevailed before the deadline. In other instances, unlawful  
               detainer complaints are filed against tenants but never  
               served. Because these complaints are never dismissed, the  
               tenant's name is publicly released after 60 days and  
               negative credit reporting ensues. Because landlords, who  
               are attempting to decide between numerous applicants for  
               scarce rental housing, rely on unlawful detainer registries  
               and on credit reports, landlords often choose not to rent  
               to tenants who appear on these registries, even if the  
               tenants were eventually found innocent of unlawful  
               detainer. As a result, given the statewide housing  
               shortage, these tenants may be shut out of rental markets  
               for up to seven years through no fault of their own.









                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  7






               This bill seeks to protect the credit and reputation of  
               innocent tenants by requiring that civil case records in  
               unlawful detainer proceedings remain sealed unless  
               landlords prevail in eviction lawsuits within 60 days of  
               filing.


          Legislative history of 60-day masking policy  .   In 1991, the  
          Legislature approved and the governor signed SB 892 (Ch. 1007,  
          Stats. 1991), legislation that restricted public access to court  
          files in unlawful detainer (UD) cases for the first 30 days  
          after filing of the complaint.  The rationale at the time, as  
          stated in the uncodified findings and declarations of SB 892,  
          was to address a "crisis due to unscrupulous eviction defense  
          services which utilize records of court filings . . . to solicit  
          and defraud tenants."  A pilot project was established to  
          evaluate the effectiveness of this new restrictive access  
          policy, and in 1993, the Legislature determined that the  
          available data demonstrated the policy was effective in meeting  
          predetermined benchmarks for success.  The Legislature also  
          noted that some tenants continued to be solicited and defrauded,  
          however, so it enacted SB 236 (Ch. 1191, Stats. 1993) to extend  
          the masking period from 30 days to 60 days in order to further  
          prevent tenants from being defrauded by eviction defense scams.


          In 2003, the Legislature enacted SB 345 (Kuehl, Ch. 787, Stats.  
          2003), which for the first time established the rule of  
          permanent masking of court records for UD actions in which the  
          tenant prevails within 60 days of the filing of the complaint.   
          The reason for this new rule, however, was to combat the problem  
          of blacklisting of tenants who had had a UD filed against them,  
          rather than to prevent fraudulent eviction defense scams.   
          According to the Assembly Judiciary analysis, SB 345 was a  
          legislative response to a Court of Appeals decision, U.D.  
          Registry, Inc. v. State of California (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th  
          107, which invalidated a previous anti-blacklisting statute that  
          prohibited credit reporting agencies from including in a credit  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  8





          report any information relating to a UD unless the landlord  
          prevailed.  In its decision, the court held that the statute  
          could not single out credit reporting agencies for its  
          prohibition of disclosure of court records.  The court also  
          specifically noted that the state could control the initial  
          release of such information without distinguishing between users  
          of the information.  Subsequently, the Legislature passed SB 345  
          to establish precisely this type of control of the information  
          at issue.


          Finally, in 2010 the Legislature enacted SB 1149 (Corbett, Ch.  
          641, Stats. 2010), which provided for a strong masking policy of  
          court records (often permanently) for many defendants in  
          foreclosure evictions pursuant to Section 1161a (authorizing  
          banks to initiate post-foreclosure evictions of former owners  
          who hold-over after the property has been sold.)  As reflected  
          in this Committee's analysis of SB 1149, what made those  
          evictions so inequitable was the fact that tenants are often  
          evicted through no fault of their own, but only because the  
          property owner has failed to make payments to the lender.


          Existing law allows the court record of the filing of an  
          eviction to potentially jeopardize a tenant's credit report or  
          rental history.  Similarly, this bill recognizes the potential  
          damage to an innocent tenant's credit record created the moment  
          when an unlawful detainer is filed in court against the tenant,  
          even when the tenant later prevails in the case, but the  
          favorable outcome occurs more than 60 days after the date when  
          the complaint is filed.  Under Code of Civil Procedure Section  
          1161.2, court unlawful detainer records are withheld from public  
          access (or "masked") by the court clerk for 60 days after the  
          date when the complaint is filed.  At the end of the 60-day  
          masking period, unless the tenant has already prevailed in the  
          eviction, the record becomes public and is available to credit  
          reporting agencies, landlord registries, and others.  Unless  
          access is withheld by the court, the fact that an eviction was  
          filed against the tenant may very well end up reflected in  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  9





          landlord registry records compiled by specialized credit  
          reporting agencies whose services are often used by landlords  
          for a fee, even if the tenant ultimately prevails in the case.   
          In such cases, innocent tenants can suffer damage to their  
          credit histories simply by virtue of the fact that eviction  
          complaints were filed against them, without any regard to the  
          outcome of the cases.  As the author explains, landlords who  
          rely on this information, unable to distinguish between  
          problematic and innocent tenants, are prone to end up screening  
          out meritorious applicants.  These unfortunate prospective  
          tenants may find their credit records cause them to be rejected  
          over and over for rental housing, particularly in competitive  
          rental markets where there are multiple applicants for each  
          property listing.


          According to Western Center and CRLA, the sponsors of the bill,  
          there are three groups of tenants who are most at risk for  
          suffering damage to their credit reports under the current  
          rules: 


              (1) Those who are named in eviction lawsuits but are never  
              served with a copy of the complaint because the landlord  
              decides not to pursue the case. Landlords are reluctant to  
              pay attorneys to dismiss such cases. As a result, these  
              tenants find themselves blacklisted for lawsuits they never  
              even knew about.


              (2) Those that raise meritorious defenses to eviction, such  
              as habitability or retaliation, and successfully settle or  
              win at trial, but only after the 60-day period has expired.  
              Despite their victories, these unlucky individuals find  
              themselves unable to rent new housing.












                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  10






              (3) Those that would have raised meritorious defenses, but  
              were too afraid of crossing the 60-day threshold and ruining  
              their credit for seven years. These tenants are wrongly  
              deprived of both their housing and their day in court, and  
              their successors in the unit will likely face the same  
              hardships.


          The author believes that such tenants deserve stronger  
          protection of their credit reports and rental histories.  In the  
          case of low and fixed-income tenants, this protection is crucial  
          to help them find replacement housing when they are forced to  
          move.  This bill would aid such tenants by keeping court records  
          of eviction proceedings private unless the landlord, rather than  
          the tenant, prevails in the case within 60 days of the lawsuit  
          being filed.


          This bill attempts to strike a balance between the interests of  
          protecting the credit records of innocent tenants and allowing  
          landlords and others access to court records.   As discussed  
          above, the existing rule that provides for release of court  
          records unless the tenant prevails within 60 days after filing  
          of the complaint creates many problems for innocent tenants and  
          potentially threatens credit reporting profiles for years.   
          According to the author, the proposed new rule, which flips the  
          standard around and keeps these court records private unless the  
          landlord prevails within 60 days, is an attempt to balance  
          competing concerns while still allowing landlords sufficient  
          access to relevant court records.  


          The bill also establishes a 60-day masking period measured from  
          the date when a default or default judgment is set aside any  
          time after the expiration of the first 60-day period.  This  
          essentially ensures that the 60-day timeline is set back to zero  
          whenever the tenant is successful in getting a default or  
          default judgment set aside and the case basically becomes an  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  11





          active case again.  Without this provision, it would be a hollow  
          victory in the relatively rare occurrence where the tenant  
          successfully argues to get the default judgment set aside  
          because the 60 day period from the filing of the complaint would  
          surely have passed.  This bill allows the tenant who prevails on  
          a motion to set aside the default to argue the underlying case  
          with a clean slate, instead of being in a position where the 60+  
          day old record of the initial filing of the eviction threatens  
          to damage the tenant's credit record, even as he or she is  
          defending the underlying case in court for the first time.


          The bill is opposed by a number of apartment associations who  
          believe that the proposed changes go too far in shielding  
          records of eviction proceedings from the public.  They write: 


               The problem is that tenants can default, never pay, but  
               never make it to trial.  The default still occurs, but no  
               record of it will ever be made public.  No other type of  
               financial default is treated this way.  It puts landlords  
               at risk of renting to serial defaulters.  Public access to  
               court records in UD cases not only serves to encourage  
               people to pay their rent on-time, property owners have the  
               right to know whether a prospective tenant is a serial rent  
               defaulter or vexatious litigant. 


               Legislation like this bill, that serves to keep important  
               information from public view, is contrary to California's  
               open records and public access policies, and unfairly keeps  
               rental property owners in the dark and from knowing the  
               truth about prospective tenants.


          Supporters of the bill contend, in response, that the bill does  
          little to put landlords at risk of renting to serial defaulters,  
          as claimed.  In order for a "serial defaulter" to repeat a  
          pattern of defaulting on rent shielded from public access over  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  12





          and over again, this person would have to somehow repeatedly get  
          each case of default past the 60-day timeline without the  
          landlord ever prevailing either at trial, or at summary  
          judgment-a task that could realistically only be accomplished  
          with legal representation.  Only at that point would this bill  
          prevent those records, indicating repeated default of rent, from  
          being made public after 60 days.  Supporters contend the  
          likelihood of the opponent's hypothetical example occurring is  
          minimal because statistics confirm the vast majority of tenants  
          in UD cases are unrepresented, and legal aid attorneys would not  
                                       realistically represent a person with a repeated history of  
          defaulting on rent who had no legitimate defenses.


          With respect to opponents' concern about not being able to know  
          whether a prospective tenant is a vexatious litigant, the author  
          notes that he has made amendments to the bill (clarifying the  
          definition of "good cause") to help facilitate the release of  
          records for the purpose of making a request for judicial notice  
          of a vexatious litigant under Evidence Code Section 452 (d).   
          This should address opponents' concerns by ensuring access to  
          those records to take notice of a vexatious litigant.  The  
          author also notes, for reasons laid out in the extensive  
          findings and declarations of the bill, that he takes seriously  
          the task of finding a balanced approach to ensuring open access  
          to public records and protecting the credit of innocent tenants,  
          but believes this legislation is needed to respond to an ongoing  
          crisis of affordable housing in the state.


          Finally, with respect to opponents' contentions that this bill  
          keeps rental property owners in the dark about prospective  
          tenants, Committee staff notes that there is nothing in existing  
          law or in this bill that prevents landlords from simply  
          requesting references from a prospective tenant's previous  
          landlords and making a phone call to find out if the person is a  
          good tenant who pays rent on time, or is perhaps a "serial  
          defaulter" instead.  It is not known why this direct,  
          common-sense practice of calling references is not sufficient to  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  13





          produce the information that a landlord needs to "find out the  
          truth" about a prospective tenant, unless landlords do not  
          routinely share truthful information with other landlords about  
          past tenants.  In any case, as the author has argued, the  
          notation on a credit report that an eviction lawsuit was filed  
          against a person on a certain date in the past, without any  
          other information about the resolution of that case, can hardly  
          be said to convey "the truth" about a prospective tenant.


          Proposed author's amendments.  Supporters of the bill report  
          having many clients whose credit records were affected by  
          so-called "zombie UDs"-eviction lawsuits that were filed but  
          never pursued further, yet continue to wreak havoc with the  
          credit records of tenants because they were never dismissed by  
          the landlord or otherwise resolved.  After discussions with the  
          Judicial Council and several superior courts, the author  
          proposes the following amendment to provide courts with  
          discretionary authority to dismiss such actions if 60 days have  
          elapsed since the complaint was filed and no proof of service of  
          the summons has been filed.  The amendment is:


            On page 7, after line 17, insert:


            SEC. 4.  Section 1167.1 is added to the Code of Civil  
            Procedure, to read:


            1167.1. If 60 days elapse after the complaint is filed and no  
            proof of service of the summons has been filed, the action may  
            be dismissed by the court without prejudice.  Nothing in this  
            section shall require a court to dismiss a case.


          The author also proposes the following amendment to correct a  
          grammatical error:









                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  14






            On page 5, line 10, strike "has" and insert "had"


          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:  This bill is supported by numerous legal  
          aid organizations who report having represented clients whose  
          credit records have been damaged by their mere involvement in  
          unlawful detainer cases in which the landlord ultimately  
          dismissed the case, or otherwise did not prevail.  For example,  
          the East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) writes:


               The Housing Practice at EBCLC counsel tenants every week  
               who are unable to obtain rental housing due to evictions on  
               their credit records. Although reason enough to deny a  
               rental applicant, these records frequently paint and unfair  
               and inaccurate picture. Tenants who win or settle their  
               cases after the 60-day period, or whose landlords refuse to  
               dismiss the case before the 60 days are up, are routinely  
               denied housing because the court records become public, and  
               then appear as blemishes on the tenants' credit record.


               One client, a homeless mother in Oakland, called our office  
               because she had been denied housing three times in one  
               month because of an eviction on her rental history.  
               However, the tenant had never been evicted. Rather, six  
               years earlier, her landlord began eviction proceedings  
               against her, but abandoned the case after she paid her  
               rent. Because the landlord neither set the case for trial  
               nor dismissed the case before the 60-day period expired,  
               the case became a public record, permanently marring her  
               rental history.


               Another client we worked with had an eviction lawsuit filed  
               against her when she had been in a coma for several months,  
               and thus, had not paid her rent. When she regained  
               consciousness, she called us from the hospital, and  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  15





               immediately paid her landlord the full amount of rent due.  
               Her landlord accepted the money, and dismissed the case.  
               However, because it was dismissed more than 60-days from  
               the day it was filed, it is a public record and will appear  
               as an eviction on her rental history, making it difficult  
               for her to secure housing in the future.


          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:  A number of apartment associations,  
          led by the Apartment Association, California Southern Cities,  
          submitted a joint letter of opposition to the Committee  
          outlining three set of amendments:


               The following are amendments that will achieve a more  
               balanced and fair approach to addressing UD masking and the  
               associated eviction defense problems: 


               1)     UD proceedings should be allowed to permanently mask  
               under the following conditions: a) if the tenant prevails,  
               b) if a plaintiff-property owner voluntarily dismisses his  
               or her UD action against the tenant, c) if the parties  
               stipulate, or d) if the tenant vacates the premises within  
               30 days from the time the UD action is filed.  


               2)     Tenants should also be barred from asserting a  
               habitability defense unless they have previously given  
               notice to the property owner of the habitability condition,  
               and the landlord has been given a reasonable time to remedy  
               the condition. 


               3)     If public records contain any errors or mistakes  
               about a person pertaining to a UD proceeding, that person  
               should have the ability to go to court and request a  
               correction. That person already can seek correction in his  
               or her credit report and may also submit a writing that  








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  16





               must be included in the debtors credit records.


               This approach reflects a more balanced approached. Because  
               most UD proceedings begin because a tenant has not paid his  
               or her rent, UD proceedings should be made public. Allowing  
               a tenant to permanently mask the UD record if he or she  
               vacates the premises within 30 days promotes judicial  
               efficiency, and disincentives eviction defense  
               organizations from lodging frivolous claims. The proposed  
               amendments also address the central loophole-the  
               habitability defense-that allows eviction defense  
               organizations to prolong UD actions and force lopsided and  
               unfair settlements. Requiring tenants to give notice of  
               habitability conditions as they arise is reasonable and  
               fair, and removes a tactic used by eviction defense  
               organization to defraud property owners and delay UD  
               proceedings.  

          With respect to Amendment 2, proposing to bar the habitability  
          defense unless the landlord has been given notice and an  
          opportunity to correct, Committee staff notes that a similar  
          proposal has already been rejected by the Committee this year  
          (AB 2003, Lackey) and that it seems to be outside the scope of  
          this much more narrow bill, relating to the release of court  
          records.  


          With respect to Amendment 3, Committee staff notes that under  
          federal and state laws governing consumer credit reporting, a  
          person cannot seek a correction of the type of information at  
          issue in this bill.  Specifically, the fact that an unlawful  
          detainer was filed against a person on a certain date in the  
          past cannot be challenged under credit reporting laws because it  
          is an accurate report of fact.  There is nothing inaccurate to  
          correct.  Proponents respond that inclusion of this fact without  
          any other information about the resolution of the case is the  
          precise reason why the information is so harmful and misleading  
          in its impact on tenants and their credit reports.








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  17







          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:



          Support

          Western Center on Law & Poverty (co-sponsor)


          California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-sponsor)


          AIDS Legal Referral Panel (ALRP)


          American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)


          Bay Area Legal Aid


          City of Santa Monica


          Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto


          East Bay Community Law Center


          Eviction Defense Collaborative 


          Eviction Defense Network


          Inner City Law Center








                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  18







          Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA)


          Legal Services of Northern California


          National Housing Law Project


          Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County (NLS-LA)


          Public Law Center


          Tenants Together




          Opposition


          Apartment Association, California Southern Cities


          Apartment Association of Orange County


          East Bay Rental Housing Association


          North Valley Property Owners Association


          San Diego County Apartment Association









                                                                    AB 2819


                                                                    Page  19






          Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association




          Analysis Prepared by:Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334