BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1720|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1720
Author: Torres (D)
Amended: 3/22/12 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/12/12
AYES: Evans, Harman, Corbett, Leno
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakeslee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 68-0, 3/29/12 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : Service of process: private investigators
SOURCE : California Association of Licensed
Investigators
DIGEST : This bill allows licensed private investigators
to enter a gated community for a reasonable amount of time
for the sole purpose of performing lawful service of
process or service of subpoena, as specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides in relevant part that
except as otherwise provided by statute, the court in which
an action is pending has jurisdiction over a party from the
time summons is served as specified. (Code of Civil
Procedure (CCP) Section 410.50)
Existing law permits a plaintiff to have the clerk of the
court issue a summons for any defendant, as specified.
CONTINUED
AB 1720
Page
2
(CCP Section 412.10) Existing law provides that except as
otherwise required by statute, the summons shall be
directed to the defendant, signed by the clerk and issued
under the seal of the court, and it shall contain specified
information, including, among other things: the title of
the court in which the action is pending, names of the
parties to the action, and notice that the person has been
sued, as specified. (CCP Section 412.20) A copy of the
summons may then be served on the defendant, as specified,
including, among other things, that it may be served by
personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to
the person to be served. (CCP Section 415.10 et seq)
Existing law requires the registration of and governs
specified persons who qualify as process servers, as
specified. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) Section
22350 et seq.) Existing law provides that a person who
receives or expects specific compensation for serving
process more than 10 times in a year must file and maintain
a certificate of registration as a process server in the
appropriate county. Existing law provides for specified
exemptions from this requirement to register as a process
server, including, among others, that private investigators
and their employees. (BPC Section 22350)
Existing law provides that notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a person shall be granted access to a
gated community for a reasonable period of time for the
purpose of performing lawful service of process or service
of a subpoena, upon identifying to the guard the person or
persons to be served, and upon displaying a current
driver's license or other identification, and one of the
following:
A badge or other confirmation that the individual is
acting in his/her capacity as a representative of the
county sheriff or marshal.
Evidence of current registration as a process server,
as specified. (CCP Section 415.21(a))
Existing law provides that the section applies only to a
gated community that is staffed by a guard or other
security personnel assigned to control access to the
CONTINUED
AB 1720
Page
3
community at the time service of process is attempted.
(CCP Section 415.21(b))
This bill amends the above authority to provide that the
described access shall be for the sole purpose of
performing lawful service of process or service of
subpoena, and that a person may also gain such access if
he/she presents in addition to a driver's license or other
identification, evidence of licensure as a private
investigator under the BPC, as specified.
This bill states the intent of the Legislature to not
abrogate or modify the holding of the court in Bein v.
Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1387,
relating to service upon a guard in a gated community.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/14/12)
California Association of Licensed Investigators (source)
Executive Council of Homeowners
Professional Investigators of California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/14/12)
Professional Investigators Political Action Committee
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Section �415.21] of the Code of Civil Procedure
specifically authorizes registered process servers �to
have] access to gated communities for service of process
or to serve a subpoena. However, while private
investigators are exempt from registering as a process
server and are allowed to serve subpoenas and service of
process, they are not specifically authorized to enter
gated communities.
Civil Procedure Code Section �415.21] inadvertently
excludes private investigators from the list of
individuals authorized to enter a community that is
gated. AB 1720 addresses this oversight in current law
CONTINUED
AB 1720
Page
4
that has caused many private investigators to be turned
away at gated communities by diligent guards when
attempting to perform a service of process or serve a
subpoena. AB 1720 helps ensure that all individuals are
duly served process or a subpoena whether they live in
or outside a gated community by clarifying that private
investigators are allowed the same access as registered
process servers.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Professional Investigators
Political Action Committee (PI-PAC) writes that it opposes
this bill because it "creates landmark legislation against
the private investigative industry by taking away an
important employer right to employ and supervise employees.
AB 1720 further lacks any effective remedy for
non-compliance." PI-PAC seeks an amendment to specifically
include employees of licensed investigators and to allow
substituted service of the gate guard on the first attempt
if ingress into a gated community is frustrated or denied.
Furthermore, from a public policy standpoint, allowing an
investigator to use substituted service in this fashion
would significantly reduce the likelihood that an
individual would be personally served. Moreover, if
existing law does not otherwise provide for substituted
service after a single effort to legally serve someone, it
is not clear why this bill should do so here.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 68-0, 3/29/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth
Gaines, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Grove, Hagman,
Halderman, Harkey, Hayashi, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman,
Jeffries, Jones, Lara, Logue, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza,
Miller, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Olsen, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ammiano, Cedillo, Fletcher, Garrick,
CONTINUED
AB 1720
Page
5
Gorell, Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Knight, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Mitchell, Norby, Portantino
RJG:k 6/14/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED