Search results

The Judicial Council approved a revision to emergency rule 9 regarding the statutes of limitations for filing civil cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to clarify that the emergency rule also applies to “statutes of repose”.

The Judicial Council of California will not vote today on whether to end two emergency rules governing evictions and judicial foreclosures, after Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye announced she suspended the vote.

The Judicial Council voted to end two temporary emergency rules governing evictions and judicial foreclosures, to stay in effect through midnight Sept. 1.

The Judicial Council voted to end the COVID-19 emergency bail schedule, as California begins a phased re-opening and courts restore services shuttered due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judges now have discretion to backdate modification requests for child, spousal, partner, or family support orders during the state of emergency.

The measures aim to continue essential court services while guarding the health and safety of the public, court employees, attorneys, litigants, judicial officers, law enforcement, and staff and inmates in detention facilities.

At its meeting today, the council approved 11 temporary emergency rules, including setting bail statewide at $0 for misdemeanors and lower-level felonies and staying eviction and foreclosure proceedings.

The council's latest temporary emergency rule requires attorneys to electronically serve and receive notices and documents in all general civil actions and family and probate proceedings when requested to do so.

Emergency meeting of court and branch leaders from around the state will focus on measures to ensure California courts can meet stringent health directives while also providing due process and access to justice.

At least 31 California counties home to 80 percent of the state's residents have kept COVID-19 emergency bail schedules to help curb the spread of the virus in jails and surrounding communities during the pandemic, according to data from superior courts.

Settlement agreements involving judicial officers, including those involving sexual harassment or discrimination, must be disclosed if public funds were spent in payment of the settlement.

A working group convened by Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye has developed a proposed rule change that would require settlement agreements involving complaints against judicial officers be disclosed to the public.