CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 1524Introduced by Committee on Judiciary (Assembly Members Kalra (Chair), Dixon (Vice Chair), Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, and Zbur)March 18, 2025 An act to amend Sections 70630 and 70631 of the Government Code, relating to courts. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTAB 1524, as introduced, Committee on Judiciary. Courts: fees.Existing law, the Uniform Civil Fees and Standard Fee Schedule Act of 2005, establishes a set fee schedule for courts to implement for, among other things, filings, service, and changes of venue.Existing law authorizes courts that have made videoconferencing services available to charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting the parties to appear by videoconference and requires that fee to be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.This bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee to appear by videoconference that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court, as defined, of providing the service.Existing law authorizes the court to charge a reasonable fee that does not exceed the costs of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee, as specified.The bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product. The bill would require any fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule to be approved by the Judicial Council. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2027, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each fee charged by a superior court prior to December 31, 2026, that was not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each new fee charged by a superior court in the preceding calendar year.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 70630 of the Government Code is amended to read:70630. (a) If the court has made videoconferencing services available, the clerk of the court shall not charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting parties to appear by videoconferencing. a fee for the parties to appear by videoconferencing that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the videoconferencing service. This fee shall be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.(b) Pro rata cost to the court has the same meaning as in Section 70631.SEC. 2. Section 70631 of the Government Code is amended to read:70631. (a) In the absence of a statute or rule explicitly authorizing or prohibiting a fee by the superior court for a particular service or product, the court may charge a reasonable fee not to exceed the costs pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee. product. A fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule shall be approved by the Judicial Council. The fee shall be distributed to the court in which it was collected.(b) By March 1, 2027, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature, in compliance with Section 9795, regarding each fee charged by a superior court as of December 31, 2026, that is not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule, that includes all of the following information:(1) The particular service or product that is provided by payment of the fee.(2) The amount of the fee.(3) Whether the fee was approved by the Judicial Council, and the date of the approval, if any.(4) The annual cost to the court for providing the particular service or product. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact cost, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of its cost.(5) The number of persons who used the service or product each calendar year. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact number of persons who used the service or product, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of the number of persons who used the service or product that calendar year.(6) The cost to the court of providing the fee or service, determined by dividing the cost of paragraph (4) by the number of users in paragraph (5).(c) By March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature regarding each new fee charged by a superior court during the preceding calendar year that includes the information specified in subdivision (b). The report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795.(d) For purposes of this section, pro rata cost to the court means a reasonable estimate of the amount of money that a fee or service costs for the court to provide to an individual court user that is not funded, reimbursed, or directly paid by the Legislature.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 1524Introduced by Committee on Judiciary (Assembly Members Kalra (Chair), Dixon (Vice Chair), Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, and Zbur)March 18, 2025 An act to amend Sections 70630 and 70631 of the Government Code, relating to courts. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTAB 1524, as introduced, Committee on Judiciary. Courts: fees.Existing law, the Uniform Civil Fees and Standard Fee Schedule Act of 2005, establishes a set fee schedule for courts to implement for, among other things, filings, service, and changes of venue.Existing law authorizes courts that have made videoconferencing services available to charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting the parties to appear by videoconference and requires that fee to be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.This bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee to appear by videoconference that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court, as defined, of providing the service.Existing law authorizes the court to charge a reasonable fee that does not exceed the costs of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee, as specified.The bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product. The bill would require any fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule to be approved by the Judicial Council. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2027, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each fee charged by a superior court prior to December 31, 2026, that was not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each new fee charged by a superior court in the preceding calendar year.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Bill
No. 1524
Introduced by Committee on Judiciary (Assembly Members Kalra (Chair), Dixon (Vice Chair), Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, and Zbur)March 18, 2025
Introduced by Committee on Judiciary (Assembly Members Kalra (Chair), Dixon (Vice Chair), Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, and Zbur)
March 18, 2025
An act to amend Sections 70630 and 70631 of the Government Code, relating to courts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
## LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1524, as introduced, Committee on Judiciary. Courts: fees.
Existing law, the Uniform Civil Fees and Standard Fee Schedule Act of 2005, establishes a set fee schedule for courts to implement for, among other things, filings, service, and changes of venue.Existing law authorizes courts that have made videoconferencing services available to charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting the parties to appear by videoconference and requires that fee to be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.This bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee to appear by videoconference that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court, as defined, of providing the service.Existing law authorizes the court to charge a reasonable fee that does not exceed the costs of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee, as specified.The bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product. The bill would require any fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule to be approved by the Judicial Council. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2027, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each fee charged by a superior court prior to December 31, 2026, that was not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each new fee charged by a superior court in the preceding calendar year.
Existing law, the Uniform Civil Fees and Standard Fee Schedule Act of 2005, establishes a set fee schedule for courts to implement for, among other things, filings, service, and changes of venue.
Existing law authorizes courts that have made videoconferencing services available to charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting the parties to appear by videoconference and requires that fee to be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.
This bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee to appear by videoconference that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court, as defined, of providing the service.
Existing law authorizes the court to charge a reasonable fee that does not exceed the costs of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee, as specified.
The bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product. The bill would require any fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule to be approved by the Judicial Council. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2027, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each fee charged by a superior court prior to December 31, 2026, that was not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each new fee charged by a superior court in the preceding calendar year.
## Digest Key
## Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 70630 of the Government Code is amended to read:70630. (a) If the court has made videoconferencing services available, the clerk of the court shall not charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting parties to appear by videoconferencing. a fee for the parties to appear by videoconferencing that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the videoconferencing service. This fee shall be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.(b) Pro rata cost to the court has the same meaning as in Section 70631.SEC. 2. Section 70631 of the Government Code is amended to read:70631. (a) In the absence of a statute or rule explicitly authorizing or prohibiting a fee by the superior court for a particular service or product, the court may charge a reasonable fee not to exceed the costs pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee. product. A fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule shall be approved by the Judicial Council. The fee shall be distributed to the court in which it was collected.(b) By March 1, 2027, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature, in compliance with Section 9795, regarding each fee charged by a superior court as of December 31, 2026, that is not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule, that includes all of the following information:(1) The particular service or product that is provided by payment of the fee.(2) The amount of the fee.(3) Whether the fee was approved by the Judicial Council, and the date of the approval, if any.(4) The annual cost to the court for providing the particular service or product. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact cost, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of its cost.(5) The number of persons who used the service or product each calendar year. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact number of persons who used the service or product, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of the number of persons who used the service or product that calendar year.(6) The cost to the court of providing the fee or service, determined by dividing the cost of paragraph (4) by the number of users in paragraph (5).(c) By March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature regarding each new fee charged by a superior court during the preceding calendar year that includes the information specified in subdivision (b). The report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795.(d) For purposes of this section, pro rata cost to the court means a reasonable estimate of the amount of money that a fee or service costs for the court to provide to an individual court user that is not funded, reimbursed, or directly paid by the Legislature.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
## The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 70630 of the Government Code is amended to read:70630. (a) If the court has made videoconferencing services available, the clerk of the court shall not charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting parties to appear by videoconferencing. a fee for the parties to appear by videoconferencing that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the videoconferencing service. This fee shall be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.(b) Pro rata cost to the court has the same meaning as in Section 70631.
SECTION 1. Section 70630 of the Government Code is amended to read:
### SECTION 1.
70630. (a) If the court has made videoconferencing services available, the clerk of the court shall not charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting parties to appear by videoconferencing. a fee for the parties to appear by videoconferencing that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the videoconferencing service. This fee shall be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.(b) Pro rata cost to the court has the same meaning as in Section 70631.
70630. (a) If the court has made videoconferencing services available, the clerk of the court shall not charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting parties to appear by videoconferencing. a fee for the parties to appear by videoconferencing that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the videoconferencing service. This fee shall be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.(b) Pro rata cost to the court has the same meaning as in Section 70631.
70630. (a) If the court has made videoconferencing services available, the clerk of the court shall not charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting parties to appear by videoconferencing. a fee for the parties to appear by videoconferencing that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the videoconferencing service. This fee shall be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.(b) Pro rata cost to the court has the same meaning as in Section 70631.
70630. (a) If the court has made videoconferencing services available, the clerk of the court shall not charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of permitting parties to appear by videoconferencing. a fee for the parties to appear by videoconferencing that exceeds the pro rata cost to the court of providing the videoconferencing service. This fee shall be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund.
(b) Pro rata cost to the court has the same meaning as in Section 70631.
SEC. 2. Section 70631 of the Government Code is amended to read:70631. (a) In the absence of a statute or rule explicitly authorizing or prohibiting a fee by the superior court for a particular service or product, the court may charge a reasonable fee not to exceed the costs pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee. product. A fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule shall be approved by the Judicial Council. The fee shall be distributed to the court in which it was collected.(b) By March 1, 2027, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature, in compliance with Section 9795, regarding each fee charged by a superior court as of December 31, 2026, that is not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule, that includes all of the following information:(1) The particular service or product that is provided by payment of the fee.(2) The amount of the fee.(3) Whether the fee was approved by the Judicial Council, and the date of the approval, if any.(4) The annual cost to the court for providing the particular service or product. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact cost, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of its cost.(5) The number of persons who used the service or product each calendar year. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact number of persons who used the service or product, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of the number of persons who used the service or product that calendar year.(6) The cost to the court of providing the fee or service, determined by dividing the cost of paragraph (4) by the number of users in paragraph (5).(c) By March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature regarding each new fee charged by a superior court during the preceding calendar year that includes the information specified in subdivision (b). The report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795.(d) For purposes of this section, pro rata cost to the court means a reasonable estimate of the amount of money that a fee or service costs for the court to provide to an individual court user that is not funded, reimbursed, or directly paid by the Legislature.
SEC. 2. Section 70631 of the Government Code is amended to read:
### SEC. 2.
70631. (a) In the absence of a statute or rule explicitly authorizing or prohibiting a fee by the superior court for a particular service or product, the court may charge a reasonable fee not to exceed the costs pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee. product. A fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule shall be approved by the Judicial Council. The fee shall be distributed to the court in which it was collected.(b) By March 1, 2027, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature, in compliance with Section 9795, regarding each fee charged by a superior court as of December 31, 2026, that is not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule, that includes all of the following information:(1) The particular service or product that is provided by payment of the fee.(2) The amount of the fee.(3) Whether the fee was approved by the Judicial Council, and the date of the approval, if any.(4) The annual cost to the court for providing the particular service or product. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact cost, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of its cost.(5) The number of persons who used the service or product each calendar year. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact number of persons who used the service or product, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of the number of persons who used the service or product that calendar year.(6) The cost to the court of providing the fee or service, determined by dividing the cost of paragraph (4) by the number of users in paragraph (5).(c) By March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature regarding each new fee charged by a superior court during the preceding calendar year that includes the information specified in subdivision (b). The report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795.(d) For purposes of this section, pro rata cost to the court means a reasonable estimate of the amount of money that a fee or service costs for the court to provide to an individual court user that is not funded, reimbursed, or directly paid by the Legislature.
70631. (a) In the absence of a statute or rule explicitly authorizing or prohibiting a fee by the superior court for a particular service or product, the court may charge a reasonable fee not to exceed the costs pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee. product. A fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule shall be approved by the Judicial Council. The fee shall be distributed to the court in which it was collected.(b) By March 1, 2027, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature, in compliance with Section 9795, regarding each fee charged by a superior court as of December 31, 2026, that is not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule, that includes all of the following information:(1) The particular service or product that is provided by payment of the fee.(2) The amount of the fee.(3) Whether the fee was approved by the Judicial Council, and the date of the approval, if any.(4) The annual cost to the court for providing the particular service or product. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact cost, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of its cost.(5) The number of persons who used the service or product each calendar year. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact number of persons who used the service or product, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of the number of persons who used the service or product that calendar year.(6) The cost to the court of providing the fee or service, determined by dividing the cost of paragraph (4) by the number of users in paragraph (5).(c) By March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature regarding each new fee charged by a superior court during the preceding calendar year that includes the information specified in subdivision (b). The report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795.(d) For purposes of this section, pro rata cost to the court means a reasonable estimate of the amount of money that a fee or service costs for the court to provide to an individual court user that is not funded, reimbursed, or directly paid by the Legislature.
70631. (a) In the absence of a statute or rule explicitly authorizing or prohibiting a fee by the superior court for a particular service or product, the court may charge a reasonable fee not to exceed the costs pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee. product. A fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule shall be approved by the Judicial Council. The fee shall be distributed to the court in which it was collected.(b) By March 1, 2027, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature, in compliance with Section 9795, regarding each fee charged by a superior court as of December 31, 2026, that is not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule, that includes all of the following information:(1) The particular service or product that is provided by payment of the fee.(2) The amount of the fee.(3) Whether the fee was approved by the Judicial Council, and the date of the approval, if any.(4) The annual cost to the court for providing the particular service or product. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact cost, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of its cost.(5) The number of persons who used the service or product each calendar year. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact number of persons who used the service or product, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of the number of persons who used the service or product that calendar year.(6) The cost to the court of providing the fee or service, determined by dividing the cost of paragraph (4) by the number of users in paragraph (5).(c) By March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature regarding each new fee charged by a superior court during the preceding calendar year that includes the information specified in subdivision (b). The report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795.(d) For purposes of this section, pro rata cost to the court means a reasonable estimate of the amount of money that a fee or service costs for the court to provide to an individual court user that is not funded, reimbursed, or directly paid by the Legislature.
70631. (a) In the absence of a statute or rule explicitly authorizing or prohibiting a fee by the superior court for a particular service or product, the court may charge a reasonable fee not to exceed the costs pro rata cost to the court of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee. product. A fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule shall be approved by the Judicial Council. The fee shall be distributed to the court in which it was collected.
(b) By March 1, 2027, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature, in compliance with Section 9795, regarding each fee charged by a superior court as of December 31, 2026, that is not explicitly authorized or prohibited by statute or rule, that includes all of the following information:
(1) The particular service or product that is provided by payment of the fee.
(2) The amount of the fee.
(3) Whether the fee was approved by the Judicial Council, and the date of the approval, if any.
(4) The annual cost to the court for providing the particular service or product. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact cost, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of its cost.
(5) The number of persons who used the service or product each calendar year. If it is not feasible for the court to determine the exact number of persons who used the service or product, despite its good faith effort to do so, the court may provide a good faith estimate of the number of persons who used the service or product that calendar year.
(6) The cost to the court of providing the fee or service, determined by dividing the cost of paragraph (4) by the number of users in paragraph (5).
(c) By March 1, 2028, and March 1 of each year thereafter, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the Legislature regarding each new fee charged by a superior court during the preceding calendar year that includes the information specified in subdivision (b). The report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795.
(d) For purposes of this section, pro rata cost to the court means a reasonable estimate of the amount of money that a fee or service costs for the court to provide to an individual court user that is not funded, reimbursed, or directly paid by the Legislature.