The Brief

Californians for the past 54 years have relied on the state’s “lemon law” to fight back against car makers that sell them defective vehicles.

Now, critics say Californians’ ability to recoup their money after buying a clunker could become more difficult, due to a hastily passed bill that lobbyists representing U.S. auto manufacturers and powerful attorneys groups drafted in secret.

Gov. Gavin Newsom hasn’t signed or vetoed Assembly Bill 1755. His spokesperson, Brandon Richards, on Friday said “the measure will be evaluated on its merits” before Newsom’s Sept. 30 bill-signing deadline.

But how the bill came to end up on his desk is the latest example of how influential lobbying groups write laws impacting millions of Californians behind closed doors — and how the measures are often passed with little time for public input or legislative debate.

“There wasn’t a single person who represents the people of California who knew about this and was a part of those conversations – for months,” Democratic San Ramon Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan told her colleagues on the Assembly Judiciary Committee last month in the final days of the legislative session.

“They dropped this in our lap, and they expect us to buy an argument related to the urgency that feels, to be honest, not real. And we’re supposed to move this in a week’s time.”

The bill seeks to address a massive uptick in lemon law lawsuits clogging the state’s court system, but it started out earlier in the session as a measure dealing with child support.

Then on August 20, with less than two weeks left in the session, the bill was stripped through the secretive “gut-and-amend” process. Its language was replaced with a 4,200-word bill that seeks to reform how lemon law disputes are resolved. The bill is so complicated its legislative analysis, which lawmakers should read to fully understand a measure’s consequences, was more than 10,000 words. 

Former Los Angeles Democratic Assemblymember Mike Gatto said it’s unlikely that lawmakers actually read all that in those final chaotic days of the session with hundreds of other consequential bills still pending.

“Unfortunately, when the Legislature makes complex policy like that with great haste, it increases the reliance on non-elected personnel,” Gatto said. “And it increases the reliance on special interest groups who tell the legislators what the legislation contains. It’s very hard during that chaotic last week of session to, you know, be able to review things of great length like that.”

Downey Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, an attorney, told her Judiciary Committee colleagues she wasn’t comfortable voting for the bill because she wasn’t sure what it would do.

“I want to make sure that consumers are protected as well,” she said. “Those are our constituents. And so that is what we really should be caring about. And I don’t know if consumers are really protected.”

Lawmakers acknowledge secret negotiations

The bill by two Democrats, Santa Ana Sen. Tom Umberg and San Jose Assemblymember Ash Kalra, nonetheless easily passed the Assembly committee, as well as the full Assembly and Senate.

Umberg’s office declined to answer CalMatters’ questions about the bill. Kalra’s office replied to an interview request with an emailed statement.

“AB 1755 went through the full legislative process with two robust committee hearings, consideration of amendments and all procedural steps,” Kalra said. “Despite concerns over process, the vast majority of members in both houses concluded this was a better policy for consumers and we could build upon the policy framework in subsequent years.”

Kalra acknowledged in his testimony that the measure was a product of negotiations between the groups behind the bill.

“AB 1755 represents a compromise between the consumer attorneys, (civil) defense attorneys, and some auto manufacturers, most notably General Motors,” Kalra told the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Opposing the bill were Tesla and foreign auto companies including Volkswagen and Toyota as well as consumer groups such as the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Auto Safety, and Consumers For Auto Reliability and Safety, according to the Digital Democracy database.

Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican whose family owns car dealerships in the Sacramento area, said he was troubled that the bill split groups that are typically aligned on legislation.

“My concern about this bill is the process by which it was developed,” Niello told his colleagues on the Senate floor. “And all you have to look at to question that is the support and opposition. This is very unusual. We don’t see this very often. … We have people, organizations from similar sources with opposite views on this. There’s something wrong with that.”

The alliances were unpredictable. Consumer attorneys fed up with clogged courts backed the bill, while consumer advocates opposed it. And while U.S. carmakers lobbied for it, foreign automakers argued it didn’t go far enough and was too friendly toward trial attorneys.

As Kalra and Umberg pitched their bill to lawmakers in those frantic, waning days of the session, they said AB 1755 would address a growing backlog of lemon law cases that have been increasingly causing havoc in the state’s civil court system.

The number of lemon law cases in California courts climbed from nearly 15,000 filings in 2022 to more than 22,000 last year. In Los Angeles County, nearly 10% of all civil filings are now lemon law cases, according to the bill’s analysis.

The growing caseload is driven by a handful of aggressive law firms that file most of the suits, according to the Civil Justice Association of California. The association wasn’t listed as having a position on the bill in the Digital Democracy database.

“What it does is it reduces the number of filings, which I think logically would lead you to believe that it also reduces the amount of money spent on lawyers,” Umberg told the Senate last month.

The California Judges Association also supported the bill.

Will lemon law bill make it harder for vehicle owners?

Under the proposed law, starting next year, auto companies and car buyers would be required to try to settle their disputes through mediation before beginning the “discovery” process that takes place after a lawsuit is filed.

Discovery is when the parties in a lawsuit gather evidence from each other that they think they’ll need to prove their case. The proposed law also sets rules for what evidence can be requested. One of the reasons the courts are so backlogged from lemon law cases is due to tedious discovery hearings, the bill’s advocates say.

It also would shorten the window during which a consumer can sue over a detective vehicle.

Umberg, a former federal prosecutor, and Kalra, a former public defender and law professor, told their colleagues that consumers would still be able to get their money back from a defective car. They argued that California’s lemon law, which Gov. Ronald Reagan signed in 1970, still would be stronger than that of any other state.

But Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said the bill would harm car owners stuck with a lemon vehicle in several ways.

It would limit the amount of “negative equity” refunds consumers could get for their defective car, and it would shorten the period in which consumers can use the lemon law to just six years, even when their warranty lasts longer, she said.

“This is a big deal for folks who pay extra for a vehicle with a warranty from the manufacturer, in order to avoid getting hit with a large unexpected repair bill,” she said in an email.

The bill also would require that consumers notify their manufacturer in writing that their car is a lemon, instead of just taking it into a dealer for repairs and starting the process of getting their money back there, she said.

It also would limit the amount of time a consumer can file a lemon lawsuit from four years after a claim is filed to just a year from the expiration of a vehicle’s warranty, she said.

“This would make it easier for unscrupulous auto manufacturers to get away with doing cheap ‘Band-Aid’ type repairs – instead of fixing the underlying problem – until the warranty expires,” leaving consumers on the hook for a massive bill, she said.

The bill’s supporters include General Motors, Stellantis (formerly Chrysler) and Ford Motor Company, as well as RV manufacturers.

Combined, Ford and GM have given sitting lawmakers at least $1.5 million since 2015, according to the Digital Democracy database.

The Consumer Attorneys of California has given at least $2.2 million during the same period.

The bill “addresses urgent procedural problems with how lemon law cases are handled in the state of California, while keeping our lemon law the strongest in the nation,” Nancy Drabble, a lobbyist for Consumer Attorneys of California, told lawmakers last month.

She argued that the proposed revision would be an improvement for car buyers since it would shorten the window that auto companies must respond to a consumer complaint to just 30 days, and it would require car companies to fix a defective car or replace it within 30 days after that.

“I think you will see an increase in buybacks of vehicles within that 60-day period, which will not even have a lawsuit filed,” lobbyist Michael Belote told lawmakers, saying he represented GM.

‘Transparency suffers’ when lawmakers rush

In an interview Friday, Belote said his lobbying firm also represents other parties involved in the negotiations, and he was speaking to CalMatters on those groups’ behalf – and not GM’s.

Belote said he rejects “the premise that it watered down the lemon law.”

He said the law itself wouldn’t change. All the bill does, he said, is set clear rules for consumers and for auto companies that will reduce time-consuming court hearings, cut down on plaintiffs’ attorney fees and speed up the process of resolving disputes.

“There is a strong reason to believe that this will get consumers what they need more quickly,” he said, “And what they need … is a car to get to work and get their kids to school.”

But why the rush? Why not wait until January when lawmakers reconvene for the new two-year session — when they could fully vet and debate the bill?

One reason was proponents had threatened to take their case to voters. Belote and Shahan said that as part of their proposed ballot initiative, the groups threatened to put a 20% cap on the fees lawyers could collect from lemon law cases, creating a financial incentive for the attorneys’ groups to negotiate with the car makers.

Belote also disputed the suggestion that lawmakers didn’t know what they were voting on.

“There was an enormous lobbying campaign on both sides that hit, I believe, every member of the Legislature repeatedly in a very short time,” he said. “There was, you know, really a tsunami of information for legislators who had lots of questions that were answered.”

Regardless of whether lawmakers fully grasped the issue, any time complicated legislation such as AB 1755 gets rushed through at the last minute, it harms the Legislature’s credibility and makes it harder for voters to trust their elected leaders, said Gatto, the former lawmaker.

“Transparency suffers,” he said, “And all the different stakeholders that keep the Legislature honest, whether it’s the electorate or the media, it makes it a lot harder for us to do our jobs.”

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Imagine MacArthur Park without a road running through the middle. That’s what most residents who live around the park say they want.

This is according to preliminary findings from the Reconnecting MacArthur Park project, an effort studying whether the busy roadway between Alvarado Street and Carondelet Street should be closed off permanently. Under this proposal, the park’s north and south sides would be rejoined to form one large green space.

The idea is to turn the major traffic corridor into usable park space in one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in Los Angeles.

Maria Ortiz, 59, who has lived near MacArthur Park for 30 years, welcomes closing off Wilshire, if it improves the area for families like hers. She is a grandmother to three granddaughters.

“Hopefully they can close it so there’s more space for kids to play, more surveillance and fewer homeless people,” Ortiz said. “Right now, the traffic is also bad, it gets really congested. People also don’t respect when the buses are coming.”

For her, the park is important because it’s the only one she has close by. But she added that changes should go beyond closing the road. 

She remembers a different MacArthur Park when she was raising her children, one that felt more welcoming for families.

“There were a lot more events at MacArthur Park before, there were contests, they would give gifts to kids,” she said. 

She joined her neighbors to participate in a public forum to explore the proposal.

The Central City Neighborhood Partners surveyed more than 1,500 people from August to December and asked them to weigh in on five possible options:

• Remove Wilshire entirely through the park and expand green space
  
• Remove Wilshire entirely and keep the short block between Park View Street and Carondelet Street open to cars
  
• Close Wilshire to all cars and turn it into a public space
  
• Close Wilshire only on weekends
  
• Allow only buses through Wilshire Boulevard

More than six in 10 survey respondents supported removing Wilshire and reconnecting the park. Keeping things as they are drew the least support.

The project now moves into the next phase, where the five concepts will go through an environmental review. The city and project partners will also develop design concepts and estimate costs to build.

At this juncture, there is no available funding for any construction.

“What we’ve been able to hear from the community was really that everyone wants to see a change in MacArthur Park,” said Diana Alfaro, associate executive director of Central City Neighborhood Partners. 

“Everyone in this community is excited or wants to be able to see new amenities,” she said, including better lighting and park infrastructure. 

In a February interview, Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez said the neighborhood doesn’t have enough parks or green space, adding that MacArthur Park alone isn’t enough for a densely populated neighborhood like Westlake.

“And that’s why I’ve been moving with my team and pushing for reconnecting MacArthur Park and closing down Wilshire Boulevard in that area to begin to create more spaces, more pedestrianized spaces, more opportunities for green space,” she said. 

At the same time, the city is moving forward with a separate plan to install fencing around MacArthur Park. The plan would add a wrought-iron fence around both halves of the park.  

Officials say the fence will allow the park to close at night and give them time to clean the space overnight. Their goal is to address safety and quality-of-life concerns.

That fencing project is not part of the reconnection study, but Alfaro said it will affect it. According to a report of the survey findings, any redesign of the park will have to factor in where the fence goes, and whether parts of it would need to be removed or rebuilt if the park is eventually reconnected.

City officials have not decided which option, if any, will move forward.

“At the end of the day, there are a lot of changes coming to MacArthur Park,” Alfaro said, “and I think it testifies why there needs to be some more attention around reconnecting or really just adding more green space for the community.”

Alex Lacayo, 35, supports closing Wilshire if it helps improve conditions at the park.

The lifelong Westlake resident often feels the park is “dirty and filthy” when he passes through. 

“If there’s a way to make the park a better place for more people to come, then I feel like it’s a good project,” Lacayo said. “We get a lot of tourists, so improving the park I think will improve the image of Los Angeles.” 

Because of ongoing concerns around homelessness and drug activity, Lacayo often avoids walking through the park. But if conditions improve, he said that could change and he would visit more often.

Alfaro believes the fencing plan and the reconnection project are both responses to those same concerns.

“The purpose of it is to ensure that the park is being well kept and maintained,” she said of the fence.

“I think all of it kind of adds to the same reason why we are doing this project to begin with,” Alfaro added. “Which is to ensure that the park itself is a park that families could use, youth can use, seniors can use.”

Sublime frontman Jakob Nowell recently studied the artifacts of the Grammy Museum's newest exhibit Sublime: Straight From Long Beach.

He wasn't even a year old when his father — the band's founder Bradley Nowell — died from a heroin overdose in 1996.

"It's been a really interesting process getting to know someone posthumously through their work and something that's so emotionally entangled in all of my machinery," Nowell said. " There's just DNA splattered all over everything in this exhibit."

The exhibit opened this week at the Grammy Museum in downtown Los Angeles. It features photos of the band, along with instruments used by the original members, song lyrics, promotional materials and other items.

This summer, Sublime's third, self-titled album celebrates its 30th anniversary. It spawned hits like, "What I Got," and "Santeria" and sold more than nine million copies, redefining Alternative radio with a blend of punk rock, reggae, ska and hip-hop.

Jakob Nowell stepped into his father's role in the band in 2023, a move he said has reconnected him to his family.

"Sometimes our work lives and our careers break us down and rip us apart from the people who matter most," Nowell said. "Getting to be a part of my father's work and my uncle's work, it really has brought together a lot of people in my life that are the most important."

Although the Grammy Museum is celebrating Sublime's past, Nowell and the band are also looking toward the future. The band is releasing a new album Until the Sun Explodes on June 12, and the title track is out now.

It's Nowell's tribute to his late father with lyrics like, "I only hope that you know I owe you my life."

"It's something I've been trying to say for 30 years," he said. "It only came out correctly now. It feels really special to get to share it with people out there. They've been sharing with me their stories my entire life."

At 30, Nowell is two years older now than when his father died at 28, but he has an outlook on their relationship that belongs to someone much older and wiser.

"The permanence of death is an illusion," Nowell said. "It's only temporary and [there's] no more evidence than everything around us here and all of the love and good times.

"It happens at the shows we play," he added. "It's evident to me every single day."

The exhibit is scheduled to run through Sept. 7.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has agreed to pay $1.9 million to settle a lawsuit filed by 13 women who say correctional officers injured them during a mass use-of-force incident at the Central California Women’s Facility in 2024.

The plaintiffs say they suffered seizures, respiratory distress and long-term vision problems after officers used batons, physical force and chemical agents on them.

“I couldn’t breathe. My lungs were on fire … I thought I was going to die,” plaintiff Wisdom Muhammad said in a recent interview at her home in Los Angeles.

The women received settlements ranging from $200,000 to $50,000 each, based on the severity of their injuries, according to their attorney Robert Chalfant.

“Sexual abuse of inmates, excessive force, cruel and unusual punishment, retaliation, those things need to stop,” Chalfant said. “And the only way those things stop is through lawsuits and forcing the payment of large amounts of money so that people take notice of what’s happening.”

In an email, CDCR spokesperson Mary Xjimenez said the agency has reviewed the incident and has taken corrective action.

More than 41 staff members were found to have violated policy, making it one of the largest disciplinary actions issued against CDCR staff in a single incident, according to CDCR. Punishment ranged from transfers to termination, CDCR said, but the department has not yet responded to a public records request for disciplinary documents related to the incident.

Incarcerated people stand together in a yard at Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, Madera County.

(

Lea Suzuki

/

The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images

)

The Aug. 2, 2024, incident began when officers removed more than 150 women from their cells and locked them in the dining hall while staff conducted a large-scale search of their cells. As temperatures in the Chowchilla facility climbed to more than 100 degrees and time wore on, the women began to ask for water, food and medication.

Prison officials have said that the incarcerated population “became disruptive.” Officers used physical force, batons and chemical agents to “stop the incident,” according to a review from the Office of the Inspector General.

The complaint claims the women were complying with the officers’ orders and that the force was excessive and unnecessary. It also alleges that some women were denied or delayed medical care after being injured, leaving them with lasting physical and psychological harm.

A total of 109 incarcerated persons were medically evaluated, CDCR said, and three were transported to an outside medical facility for a short time. In the wake of the incident, CDCR also said it made mental health staff and resources available to those affected.

Staff were also retrained after the incident on how to respond to alarms and on the appropriate use of force, according to CDCR.

The women involved in the suit have a broader claim about this incident as well, that it was retaliation for sexual assault complaints that they had filed against correctional staff.

The women’s prison in Chowchilla has been plagued by reports of sexual assault for years. In one high-profile case, at least 22 women accused correctional officer Gregory Rodriguez of sexual abuse dating back to 2014. The state ultimately paid millions of dollars to settle those claims. Rodriguez was criminally charged and sentenced to 224 years in prison.

Last year, an audit by the Office of Inspector General found that at least 279 women had sued the department, accusing at least 83 prison employees of sexual misconduct. The audit describes “a wave” of lawsuits filed by currently and formerly incarcerated people alleging staff sexual assault, harassment and misconduct. In response to the lawsuits, the department approved 402 investigations.

The U.S. Department of Justice is also investigating allegations of sexual abuse and staff misconduct at California women’s prisons.

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a civil rights investigation into staff sexual abuse allegations at two women’s prisons in Chowchilla and Chino, following a series of lawsuits and similar abuses at federal facilities like FCI Dublin, which was closed due to widespread misconduct.

(

J. David Ake

/

Getty Images

)

In the settlement reached this past week, CDCR did not agree to any policy changes or other non-monetary terms, and did not admit to wrongdoing.

“The Department’s focus remains on the safety, security, and well-being of both the incarcerated population and staff,” Xjimenez said.

Another class action lawsuit tied to the Aug. 2 incident is still pending. That case, known as Hooper v. State of California, raises similar claims that medical care was delayed or denied and that the use of force was excessive and retaliatory. It is set to go to mediation in May, according to court filings.

CDCR said it could not comment on pending litigation.

Chalfant said that many of his clients were scared to come forward. The incarcerated woman told him that correctional officers continued to reference the lawsuit and retaliate against them by writing them up for minor infractions and searching their belongings up to the day of the settlement.

“If individuals’ rights are violated in state prisons, lawyers are going to take those cases,” Chalfant said. “[These women] don’t lose their constitutional rights when [they] go into a prison facility.”