BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2394
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2394 (Brownley) - As Introduced: February 19, 2010
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to Be Amended)
SUBJECT : CIVIL PROCESS AND NOTICES: MINISTERIAL OFFICERS
KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO REDUCE OPERATING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
DEPENDENCE ON PAPER DOCUMENTS, SHOULD ASSORTED SECTIONS OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BE UPDATED TO ESTABLISH NEW PROCEDURES
FOR SHERIFFS AND MARSHALS TO SEND, RECEIVE, AND MAINTAIN CERTAIN
ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF
CIVIL JUDGMENTS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill, the Levying Officer Electronic Transaction Act,
represents a broad, early effort to adapt the Code of Civil
Procedure to modern information technology and promote systemic
migration away from a paper-based model of civil law
enforcement. Generally, this bill establishes new procedures
for sheriffs and marshals to send, receive, and maintain certain
electronic records and documents relating to their duties in
enforcing civil judgments. However, as proposed to be amended,
this bill does not authorize the sheriff to use electronic means
to serve papers upon a person that otherwise require service by
personal delivery or mail. This bill permits a sheriff to
retain the original paper version of a writ of execution and
instead file only an electronic return and accounting with the
court-changing the previous rule that the sheriff must attach
and file with the court only the paper versions of both
documents. In addition, this bill would allow the sheriff to
serve an earnings withholding order by first class mail rather
than by certified mail, and substitutes return by mail of the
Judicial Council-issued "Employer's Return" form for the U.S.
Post Office return receipt, for the purpose of determining when
service is complete or when personal service must be made when
service by mail has been unsuccessful. This bill makes a number
of other clarifying and technical changes relating to the
contents of certain notices and process documents.
AB 2394
Page 2
The sponsor of this bill, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, and other supporters believe that there are
significant potential time and cost savings associated with
increased use of electronic records and documents, and that this
bill will increase the efficiency of the sheriffs generally by
saving time and money spent transporting paper documents to the
courthouse or the county recorder's office that may otherwise be
transmitted by fax or email. As proposed to be amended, no
court shall be required by this bill to receive or process
electronic records or documents from the sheriff unless that
court has mutually agreed with the sheriff that both parties are
able and ready to abide by these provisions. This so-called
"opt-in provision", developed in conjunction with the Judicial
Council, is intended to provide time for courts to address
workability problems in advance. There is no formal opposition
to this bill.
SUMMARY : Establishes procedures for sheriffs and marshals to
transmit, receive, and maintain certain electronic records and
documents related to civil law enforcement, in order to reduce
operating costs and promote systemic migration away from a
paper-based model of doing business. Specifically, this bill,
the Levying Officer Electronic Transaction Act ("the Act"):
1)States Legislative findings that modern technologies offer
alternatives to paper-based systems and provide the means to
create, store, retrieve, and transmit records and documents in
electronic form, resulting in increased efficiency, taxpayer
savings, and improved public access to levying officers.
Further states Legislative intent to accommodate current and
future technologies based on industry standards.
2)Provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to
require a court or levying officer to comply with any of its
provisions unless the court and the levying officer have (a)
jointly determined that both the court and the sheriff's
department have the resources and the technological capacity
to do so, and (b) have mutually agreed to electronically
process documents as provided in the Act.
3)Authorizes sheriffs and marshals (also referred to as "levying
officers") to utilize an information processing system to
create, generate, send, receive, store, display, retrieve, or
process information, electronic records, and documents when
AB 2394
Page 3
based on industry standards and only to the extent that the
levying officer has the resources and technological capacity
to do so.
4)Provides that if a technical problem with the levying
officer's system prevents receipt of an electronic
transmission, and the sender demonstrates an attempt to
electronically transmit the document on that day, then the
levying officer must deem the document as received on that
day.
5)Permits a levying officer to create, store, print or process
transmit an electronic record, including an electronic mail
message ("email") in the place of, and in the same manner as,
the paper record or document upon which the electronic record
is based.
6)Provides that whenever fax transmission of a document or
record to a levying officer is authorized by this act, the
levying officer may act upon an electronic record transmitted
by a fax machine in the same manner as the paper record or
document upon which the electronic version is based.
7)Requires a person transmitting an electronic record to the
levying officer by fax or email pursuant to this Act to:
a) Include with the record certain information, as
specified (in either a cover sheet or within the record
itself), that identifies the name and fax or email contact
information of the sender.
b) Retain the paper version of the record or document and
deliver the paper version of the record or document to the
levying officer within five days after a request to do so
has been mailed to the sender by the levying officer.
8)Provides that, with respect to deeds and conveyances that the
sheriff must execute and deliver to the purchaser of real
estate sold by the sheriff under authority of law, the deeds
and conveyances may be recorded electronically pursuant to
this Act if they comply with the Electronic Recording Delivery
Act of 2004 (commencing with Section 27390 of the Government
Code).
9)Requires the levying officer to exclude or redact identifying
AB 2394
Page 4
information, including SSN and financial account numbers, from
any electronic record or document made available to the
public, as well as any writ return filed with the court.
10)Provides that in lieu of returning the paper version of an
original writ of execution to a court, the levying officer may
retain the original writ, or an electronic copy of the
original writ, and electronically file with the court only a
return reporting the levying officer's actions, amounts
collected, and costs incurred, by a specified deadline.
11)Requires a levying officer, at least once every two years, to
file an accounting with the court for all amounts collected
under an earnings withholding order (EWO), including costs and
interest, and authorizes the levying officer to file the
accounting with the court by electronic means.
12)Repeals the requirement that a levying officer make a
supplemental return on the writ of execution upon termination
of an EWO when the writ is returned to the court before such
time that the EWO terminates.
13)Permits a judgment creditor or his or her attorney to
electronically transmit to the levying officer the following
documents:
a) Written levying officer instructions (generally,
providing information necessary to enforce a judgment, e.g.
an adequate description of property to be levied on.)
b) Written directions to release property ("the release").
14)Permits a garnishee to electronically transmit the
garnishee's memorandum to the levying officer.
15)Authorizes the sheriff to serve an earnings withholding order
(EWO), if not by personal delivery, then by first class mail,
postage prepaid (instead of via registered or certified mail.)
Further provides that when service is made by mail, service
is complete at the time of receipt of the EWO as indicated in
the employer's return, or the date of mailing if the date of
receipt is not indicated on the employer's return.
16)Provides that if the levying officer attempts service by mail
and does not receive the employer's return within 15 days from
AB 2394
Page 5
the date of mailing, then the levying officer shall make
personal delivery of service.
17)Requires a writ of execution and a writ of possession or sale
of property to state: (1) the type of legal entity of the
judgment debtor, if the judgment debtor is other than a
natural person; and (2) whether the case is limited or
unlimited.
18)Provides that any amount of money required to be paid by the
purchaser of real property to the levying officer as a
documentary transfer tax must then be forwarded to the county
and is not considered to be added to the judgment.
19)Allows the name of the judicial officer, as an alternative to
his or her signature, to appear on the specified notice
informing a person subject to subpoena that failure to appear
may result in issuance of a warrant.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Generally requires that certain documents and records relating
to service of process and notices be in writing, and, when
required to be served on a party, must be served by personal
delivery or by certified mail in some cases.
2)Provides that if a technical problem with a court's electronic
filing system prevents the court from accepting an electronic
filing during its regular filing hours on a particular court
day, and the electronic filer demonstrates that he or she
attempted to electronically file the document on that day, the
court must deem the document as filed on that day.
(California Rule of Court 2.259(d).)
3)Provides that, when the sheriff sells real estate, under and
by virtue of an execution or order of court, the sheriff shall
execute and deliver to the purchaser all such deeds and
conveyances as are required by law and necessary for the
purpose, and such deeds and conveyances shall be as valid in
law as if they had been executed by the sheriff who made the
sale. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 262.4. All further
references will be to this Code unless otherwise noted.)
4)Pursuant to the Electronic Recording Delivery Act of 2004,
authorizes a county recorder to enter into a contract with
AB 2394
Page 6
certain other parties for the delivery for recording, and
return to the party requesting recording, of a digitized
electronic record that is an instrument affecting a right,
title, or interest in real property. Permits the use of
digitized electronic records for this purpose only if the
county recorder has established an electronic recording
delivery system that has been certified by the Attorney
General. (Government Code Section 27391.)
5)Requires a separate writ of execution to be issued for each
county where a levy is to be made. Allows for writs to be
issued successively until the money judgment is satisfied,
except that a new writ may not be issued for a county until
the expiration of 180 days after the issuance of a prior writ
for that county unless the prior writ is first returned to the
court by the levying officer. (Section 699.510(a).)
6)Provides that upon delivery of the writ of execution to the
levying officer to whom the writ is directed, together with
the written instructions of the judgment creditor, the levying
officer shall execute the writ in the manner prescribed by
law, but may not levy upon any property under the writ after
the expiration of 180 days from the date the writ was issued.
(Section 699.530.)
7)Requires the levying officer to whom a writ of execution is
delivered to return the writ to the court, together with a
report of the levying officer's actions and an accounting of
amounts collected and costs incurred, at the earliest of the
following times:
a) Two years from the date of issuance of the writ.
b) Promptly after all of the duties under the writ are
performed.
c) When return is requested in writing by the judgment
creditor.
d) If no levy takes place under the writ within 180 days
after its issuance, promptly after the expiration of the
180-day period. (Section 699.560.)
8)Requires a levying officer, at least once every two years, to
file an account with the court for all amounts collected under
an earnings withholding order (EWO), including costs and
interests added to the amount due. (Section 706.026.)
AB 2394
Page 7
9)Provides that if a writ of execution is returned before the
associated earnings withholding order terminates, on
termination of the earnings withholding order the levying
officer shall make a supplemental return on the writ.
(Section 706.033.)
10)Requires the judgment creditor to give the levying officer
instructions in writing that are signed by the judgment
creditor's attorney of record or, if the judgment creditor
does not have an attorney of record, by the judgment creditor.
(Section 687.010.)
11)Provides that no direction or authority by a party or his
attorney to a sheriff, in respect to the execution of process
or return thereof, or to any act or omission relating thereto,
is available to discharge or excuse the sheriff from a
liability for neglect or misconduct, unless it is contained in
a writing, signed by the attorney of the party, or by the
party, if he has no attorney. (Section 262.)
12) Requires a person from whom the sheriff has requested a
garnishee's memorandum to mail or deliver the memorandum to
the levying officer within 10 days of the request, whether or
not the levy is effective. (Section 701.030.)
13)Authorizes the sheriff to serve an earnings withholding order
by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, with return receipt requested. Further
provides that when service is made by mail, service is
complete at the time the return receipt is executed by or on
behalf of the recipient. (Section 706.101(b).)
14)Provides that if the levying officer attempts service by mail
and does not receive a return receipt within 15 days from the
date the EWO was mailed, then the levying officer shall make
personal delivery of service. (Section 706.101(b).)
15)Specifies the information that must be stated on a writ of
execution (Section 699.520) and a writ of possession or sale
of property. (Section 712.020.)
16)Provides that when the purchaser of an interest in real
property pays the amount due, the levying officer conducting
the sale shall execute and deliver a deed of sale to the
purchaser and record a duplicate of the deed of sale in the
AB 2394
Page 8
office of the county recorder. (Section 701.660.)
17)Requires the signature of the magistrate issuing the warrant
to appear on the specified notice informing a person subject
to subpoena that failure to appear may result in issuance of a
warrant. (Section 1993.)
COMMENTS : This bill, the Levying Officer Electronic Transaction
Act, represents one of the first, but certainly not one of the
last, comprehensive efforts to adapt the Code of Civil Procedure
to modern information technology and promote systemic migration
away from a paper-based model of civil law enforcement. The
author and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the
sponsor of this bill, have admirably volunteered to take the
lead in starting this daunting task. They and other supporters
of the bill believe that there are significant potential time
and cost savings associated with increased use of electronic
records and documents, and that this bill will increase the
efficiency of the Sheriff's Office by saving countless number of
trips to the courthouse or the county recorder's office to
transport original paper versions of documents that may
otherwise be transmitted by fax or email. This lengthy bill
would update numerous sections of the Code of Civil Procedure to
establish new procedures for sheriffs and marshals to send,
receive, and maintain certain electronic records and documents
relating to their duties in enforcing civil judgments.
Author's Statement: The author writes in support: "This bill
provides a means for the Sheriff and Marshal to reduce civil law
enforcement operating costs by migrating from a paper based
business model to a modern system that makes extensive use of
electronic records, e.g., digitized writs, and communication,
e.g., websites and email. Today's information technologies
increase productivity and minimize errors by avoiding data entry
redundancies. The reduced processing time for electronic
documents and data exchanged between courts, sheriffs and
marshals, and litigants presents an opportunity for staff to do
more with fewer people."
Author's amendments : The author and sponsor of the bill have
worked closely with the Committee and various stakeholders,
including the Judicial Council, registered process servers, and
legal support professionals, to address potential due process
and workability concerns with the bill, which, as introduced,
proposed a broad, ambitious slate of changes to the Code of
AB 2394
Page 9
Civil Procedure. The author now proposes to amend the bill to
focus primarily on a select number of areas in which there was
consensus that time and cost savings for sheriffs could be
achieved without upsetting the balance between due process and
business convenience concerns.
As Proposed to be Amended, Courts and Sheriffs Must Both Opt-In
to the Act . There is a common expression that "it takes two to
tango." In the case of the exchange of electronic records and
documents, that is certainly true because no matter how
technologically up-to-speed the sender of an electronic document
may be, it is of little use unless the intended recipient of the
electronic document is also equipped to receive and work with
documents in the same electronic format. Even if the recipient
possesses the same technological capabilities as the sender, the
recipient may need time to adjust its organizational business
practices to reflect the fact that documents may now exist in
multiple formats, and there may not necessarily be the guarantee
of an available hard-copy document.
For these reasons, at the request of the Judicial Council, the
author has appropriately proposed to amend the bill to provide
that nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a court
or levying officer to comply with any of its provisions unless
the court and the levying officer have: (1) jointly determined
that both the court and the sheriff's department have the
resources and the technological capacity to do so; and (2) have
mutually agreed to electronically process documents as provided
in the Act. In other words, no court shall be required by this
bill to receive and process electronic records or documents from
the sheriff unless that court has mutually agreed with the
sheriff that both parties are able and ready to abide by these
provisions. This so-called "opt-in" provision is intended to
address workability problems expressed by the courts and ensure
a smoother transition in complying with this bill, particularly
with respect to the change in return of writ procedure also
proposed by this bill (and discussed below.) The Judicial
Council has not yet taken a position on this bill, but it is
anticipated that the court opt-in provision at least ensures
that the Council will not oppose this bill in this Committee.
Background on Mandatory Return of Original Writs and the Problem
This Causes Sheriffs. Under current law, a separate writ of
execution must be issued for each county where a levy is to be
made. Furthermore, while writs may be issued successively until
AB 2394
Page 10
the money judgment is satisfied, a new writ may not be issued
for a county until the expiration of 180 days after the issuance
of a prior writ for that county unless the prior writ is first
returned. (Section 699.510(a).) In practice, the writ is
"returned" to the court only when the sheriff physically brings
the original paper version of the writ, along with the
accounting document (the "return"), to the court and files the
documents. The main purpose of the return is to provide updated
accounting information to the court clerk so that any
subsequently issued writ will accurately reflect the balance of
the judgment to be collected. Courts commonly treat the
sheriff's return of the original paper writ as the necessary
triggering event that permits the court to issue another
subsequent writ. This practice, although inefficient from the
sheriff's perspective, is intended to alleviate the court's
constant concern that two writs of execution with different
terms may be issued in the same county in the same case.
Sheriffs' associations, on the other hand, contend that it is
simply unnecessary to continue to require the original paper
writ to be returned to the court, when the key information the
court needs is the accounting information contained in the
return. The result of this outdated rule, the sheriffs'
associations argue, is a massive backlog of unreturned writs.
According to the California State Sheriffs' Association:
Many Sheriff Offices are anywhere from six months to
three years behind in filing their writ returns with
the court. Sacramento County, for example, is three
years behind in writ returns-a total of 25,650 writs.
Sacramento sheriffs also have 2,292 unprocessed RUSH
requests for writ returns (where the plaintiff has
requested the writ be returned prior to the normal
expiration). The reason for the backlog of returns is
the time it takes to physically locate and associate
the "original writ" with the "writ return" prior to a
court visit. Simply put, it takes staff time and
effort to locate the physical file, pull the writ from
the file, associate the writ with the return, and
return the file to the shelf. When the Sheriff has
multiple offices, the physical files may be at an
off-site location, causing a further delay. With
recent budget cuts and layoffs, Sheriffs have less
staff than ever before to accomplish these tasks.
AB 2394
Page 11
Eliminating the need for the "original writ" to
accompany the writ return to court frees the Sheriff
from a time-consuming and cumbersome task, thereby
allowing a quicker return. The writ return (not the
writ) serves to alert the court that the writ is no
longer in play. The courts are already familiar with
the writ return document. Filing a writ return with
the court becomes a "push button" process (via fax or
email) that can be accomplished by any Sheriff's staff
in any location, regardless of where the physical file
is located. Everyone benefits.
Additionally, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department also
reports being many months behind in the return of writs. These
sheriffs write:
Since we also are many weeks behind in processing
applications for earnings withholding orders, which
are higher priority, writs were only returned using
overtime. But overtime has been curtailed. LASD has
40,549 writs that must be returned at a cost of 5,400
hours or 5.5 full time employees (FTE). The ability
to submit a return without the original writ reduces
processing time by more than 95%.
As Proposed to be Amended, Sheriffs May Retain the Original
Paper Writ of Execution and File With The Court Only an
Electronic Return and Accounting. The author has proposed to
amend the bill to permit the levying officer to (a) retain the
original writ of execution, or an electronic copy of the
original writ, in lieu of returning the original paper version
to the court; and (b) file with the court only the return
reporting the levying officer's actions, amounts collected, and
costs incurred, by a specified deadline. If the court has
"opted-in" to this Act, then the sheriff may file the return
electronically with the court pursuant to the mutually
agreed-upon rules for sending and receiving electronic records
at that time.
The blanket opt-in provision for courts was especially important
here in addressing concerns expressed by Judicial Council and
court personnel that removing the requirement for the return of
the original paper writ poses a workability problem for many
courts whose workflow is often premised on receipt of both the
original writ and writ return in paper form.
AB 2394
Page 12
Because there was consensus that the physical return of the
original paper writ does not in itself provide essential
information to the court-all of which is conveyed in the return
and accounting-the Committee finds the proposed amendment to be
reasonably aimed and is less concerned about pure workability
concerns that can be negotiated to resolution between sheriffs
and the courts.
180-day expiration period for writs. Of greater concern to the
Committee were provisions contained in the as-introduced version
of the bill that essentially deleted the long-standing
requirement that a writ of execution expires after a set number
of days (in this case, 180 days.) The Committee's research
indicated that the Legislature has long maintained a clear
policy under which all writs must expire after some set time
period, only after which a new writ may be issued in the case.
Although the sponsor contended that deleting the 180-day
expiration period for writs would help prevent certain
problematic scenarios where two writs could be issued in the
same case in the same county, it was not clear that this
deletion is necessary to effectuate the objective of this
bill-namely, to provide sheriffs with a more cost-effective
alternative to having to file original paper writs and returns
with the court. The author has now proposed to amend the bill
to remove provisions that delete the 180-day expiration period,
essentially preserving this requirement in existing law.
As Proposed to be Amended, Sheriffs May Serve an Earnings
Withholding Order by First Class Mail Rather Than by Certified
Mail. Under current law, an earnings withholding order (EWO)
must be made either by personal delivery or by registered or
certified mail, postage prepaid. (Section 706.101(b).) When
service is made by registered of certified mail, service is
deemed complete at the time the "return receipt is executed by
or on behalf of the recipient." (Id.) The return receipt refers
to the "green card" that the U.S. Post Office returns by mail to
customers who purchase registered or certified mail service,
after someone at the recipient's address has signed the card to
acknowledge receipt of the registered or certified letter. If
service by mail has been made but the return receipt has not
been received back by the levying officer after 15 days from the
date of mailing, then the levying officer must serve the EWO by
personal delivery (Id.)
AB 2394
Page 13
As proposed to be amended, this bill would allow the sheriff to
serve EWOs by first class mail rather than by certified mail.
According to the sponsor, it typically costs $5.88 to serve an
EWO by certified mail, of which $2.20 is charged by the Post
Office for return receipt service. By contrast, it typically
costs just $0.73 to send the same EWO materials by first class
mail-a significant cost savings.
However, because first class mail, by definition, does not
involve any "green card" return receipt, the author proposes
amendments to that substitute, in place of the return receipt,
the "employer's return" included in the papers accompanying
every EWO. The employer is instructed on the employer's return
form to provide specified information about the employee on the
form and deliver or mail the form back to the levying officer
within 15 days. The author's proposed amendments: (1) clarify
that an employer's return is the Judicial Council-issued form
(WG-005) specified by Section 706.126; (2) specify that service
is deemed complete based on information indicated by the
employer in the employer's return; and (3) require the levying
officer to serve the EWO by personal delivery if the employer's
return is not received within 15 days of the initial mailing.
The use of the employer's return not only provides a significant
cost-savings to levying officers serving EWOs by mail, it
potentially represents a more trustworthy mechanism to serve
these documents by mail when they are not personally served.
Because the Post Office return receipt may be signed by any
person at the employer's address-a secretary, visitor, or even
the person who is the subject of the EWO-there is perhaps a
greater potential for mischief or unintentional loss of the card
before it is returned. The employer's return, on the other
hand, is a two-page form addressed by name to the employer of
the person who is the subject of the EWO, and contains
instructions to the employer to complete, sign, and return the
form to the levying officer within 15 days or be subject to
civil penalty. Finally, the Committee is not aware of any
evidence that first class mail is significantly less reliable
than either registered or certified mail. For these reasons,
the Committee believes the author's proposed amendments probably
do not compromise due process standards associated with service
by mail of EWOs under current law.
As Proposed to be Amended, Sheriffs May Not Electronically Serve
Papers That Otherwise Require Service by Personal Delivery or
AB 2394
Page 14
Mail. The introduced version of this bill, currently in print,
contains a number of provisions that the author has chosen to
remove from the bill as reflected by the proposed amendments.
Among the provisions the author proposes to amend out of the
bill are provisions that would have authorized levying officers,
for the first time, to electronically serve a number of legal
documents that, because of due process concerns, must be served
personally (or in some cases, by certified mail) under current
law. Among these documents are wage garnishment orders,
earnings withholding orders, EWO modification notices,
subpoenas, and other judicial process documents.
During discussion among the stakeholders, the Committee
expressed concerns that neither fax nor email technology was
sufficiently reliable or trustworthy to authorize electronic
service of process for documents as important as an order for
wage garnishment or an earnings withholding order. The reason
that California law requires personal service of certain notices
and judicial process reflects the Legislature's judgment that
the guarantee of due process requires no less when important
personal rights are at stake. In this case, it is not clear to
the Committee that a person's due process rights to receive
notice and process of actions against the person are necessarily
fulfilled when those documents are electronically transmitted
via email or fax technology. For example, automatic spam filter
programs can cause important emails to never be received by the
email account holder. Documents can easily be forged or altered
when rendered electronically, and email accounts can be "hacked"
to delete or intercept messages. Fax machines present their own
set of reliability issues because they can easily jam, run out
of paper, drop the connection, or otherwise malfunction during
an important transmission. In many offices, fax machines are
shared among many employees, raising privacy concerns, and
important faxes can get mixed with "junk faxes" and
unintentionally get discarded. For both fax and email methods,
there are competing theories as to what set of conditions, if
true, shall constitute confirmation that a fax or email
transmission was "received" (and thus "served") unless there is
a human acknowledgment of receipt. If there is a technical
problem that prevents an email or fax message from being
received, unless the recipient was expecting the message, he or
she would never know to contact the sender to inquire about the
absence of the message. For these reasons, the author has
prudently proposed to amend the bill so that levying officers
are not permitted to electronically serve EWOs, wage garnishment
AB 2394
Page 15
orders, or other judicial process that otherwise require service
by personal delivery or mail, as provided.
As proposed to be amended, this bill still permits sheriffs to
send and receive by fax or email other types of documents, not
required to be served, as provided in the bill. For example, a
judgment creditor or his attorney may fax levying officer
instructions to the sheriff instead of mailing or delivering the
written instructions required to levy pursuant to Section 262.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support (for the introduced version of the bill)
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (sponsor)
California State Sheriffs' Association
California Law Enforcement Association of Records Supervisors
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334