Subject: Effects of AB107

JUSTICE COURT ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING EFFECTS OF AB107

During the 79th Legislative Session, Assembly Bill 107 (AB107) was signed into law by Governor Sandoval. AB107 relates to the sealing of eviction case records. The law applies to all evictions cases pending or filed on or after October 1, 2017. The new law has various impacts upon court processes and summary eviction litigants. This summary is intended to provide notice of the anticipated impacts resulting from AB107. Over time, the court may issue additional statements if unanticipated impacts arise.

AB107 provides two primary changes: (1) eviction cases which are denied or dismissed are automatically sealed, and (2) a tenant may file a motion to seal a case where eviction has been ordered.

ANTICIPATED IMPACT NO. 1: NO MORE AMENDED COMPLAINTS

AB107 provides for the automatic sealing of all cases which are denied or dismissed. The most significant impact upon landlords regarding this aspect of AB107 relates to straight eviction cases where a tenant has not filed a responsive answer or affidavit. When a landlord files a complaint with a fatal error or omission, the straight eviction is denied. The result will be the automatic sealing of the case by operation of law. This will require a landlord to file a corrected complaint in a NEW case, since the prior case no longer exists (having been sealed).

This was the prior practice of the Justice Court before 2012. Then, the court began on a trial basis to deny (provisionally) non-compliant complaints, authorizing landlords to file an amended complaint by which the defect was permitted to be cured. The trial basis period, it was hoped by the court, would provide instruction to landlords so that, over time, such non-compliance errors would be eliminated or reduced. This, it was anticipated, would benefit both landlord efficiency and the court, in terms of its resources (approximately 15% of all 2017 landlord complaints to date have been denied due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and/or court rules requiring additional review by court staff and additional action by landlords).

However, due to the passage of AB107, once denied, there will no longer be a case into which a landlord may file an amended complaint. The ultimate result will mean that a landlord who files a non-compliant complaint will have to pay the court filing fee a second time in order to file the corrected complaint. Landlords are encouraged and cautioned to take special care in complaint and notice preparation. Landlords are also strongly encouraged to use the latest versions of summary eviction pleadings/documents as currently found on the Civil Law Self Help Center’s website.

ANTICIPATED IMPACT NO. 2: NO MORE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION or MOTIONS TO PLACE ON CALENDAR

If a case is denied or dismissed at hearing, it will automatically be sealed under AB107. Therefore, by operation of law, there will not be any case into which a landlord may file a motion for reconsideration or motion to place on calendar. Landlord’s sole remedy will be to appeal the denial.

However, some cases are dismissed when a Landlord misses a hearing. In these cases, the court is compelled to dismiss the eviction for lack of prosecution. Following such dismissals, some landlords have filed motions to place the dismissed eviction case back on calendar. This will not be possible due to AB107’s automatic sealing of the case. In such cases, the landlord may begin the eviction process again, beginning with new notices.

In unlawful detainer cases dismissed for lack of prosecution, if less than 30 days has lapsed since the expiration of landlord’s 3-day, 5-day lease violation, 7-day or 30-day notice (“Landlord’s Initial Notice”), a landlord may simply serve a new 5-day notice of unlawful detainer and file a new complaint against the tenant. However, if more than 30 days has lapsed since the expiration of Landlord’s Initial Notice, a new 3-day, 5-day lease violation, 7-day or 30-day notice must be re-served along with a new 5-day unlawful detainer notice. In all 5-day pay-or-quit cases dismissed for lack of prosecution a new 5-day pay-or-quit notice must be served before a new complaint may be filed.

To avoid dismissal of a case for lack of prosecution, landlords should notify the court in advance in the event of emergency which will cause them to miss a court hearing.

ANTICIPATED IMPACT NO. 3: HANDLING OF STIPULATED, MEDIATED OR OTHERWISE RESOLVED CASES

In cases where the parties come to an agreement with terms to be performed by a tenant, the court will accept into the record the terms of agreement and will set a hard date two (2) days after tenant’s last condition must be met. On that date, denial of the case will become effective. However, if tenant fails to meet the conditions, Landlord will have the two (2) days to file a motion to request eviction due to tenant’s failure or request a hearing to establish tenant’s noncompliance with settlement terms. Landlord must file the Motion before the denial date or the denial automatically becomes effective.

ANTICIPATED IMPACT NO. 4: APPEALS

The legislature did not address the impact of AB107 upon a landlord’s right to appeal an adverse decision. Procedurally, if a case is sealed after denial, there is theoretically no case file for appeal. However, because appeal is a basic right of the parties, it must be afforded. A simple Motion to Unseal for Appeal may be filed after an eviction denial during the 10-day appeal period. As a matter of routine, it is anticipated this would be granted, thus permitting the appeal to move forward. A Motion to Unseal will not be accepted in order for a party to file a motion to reconsider or place on calendar.