The Reclaim Act.

Existing law authorizes a person protected by a restraining order issued after a hearing pursuant to the above-described provisions to file a petition, without fee, to have the person who is the subject of that order declared a vexatious litigant if, while the restraining order is still in place, they commence, prosecute, or maintain litigation against the person protected by the restraining order in an action that is determined to be meritless and caused the person protected by the order to be harassed or intimidated.

Existing law establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and providing for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable those persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. Existing law authorizes a court to issue a protective order enjoining a party from engaging in specified acts, including threatening or harassing the other party or disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party refers to conduct that includes coercive control, which includes unreasonably engaging in, among other things, isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support. Existing law makes an intentional and knowing violation of a protective order punishable as a misdemeanor.

Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to, among other things, promote the health and safety of domestic violence survivors and their children. Existing law recognizes that litigation abuse is the use of legal or bureaucratic procedures by abusive partners to continue to attack, harass, intimidate, coercively control, or maintain contact with a former partner through the legal system. Existing law limits and controls discovery in family law proceedings to the least intrusive methods, as specified.

Existing law authorizes a court to issue, after notice and a hearing, orders enjoining a party from engaging in specified behavior, including contacting, attacking, or threatening another party, and excluding the party from a family dwelling. Existing law further provides that when determining whether to make those orders, the court must consider whether its failure to make any of those orders may jeopardize the safety of specified parties.

This bill, the Reclaim Act, would remove the requirement that the domestic violence restraining order still be in place for purposes of a person being declared a vexatious litigant, and instead would apply when the restraining order is in effect, has expired, or has been modified or terminated. The bill would, rather than requiring a determination whether the prior litigation was meritless and caused the protected person to be harassed or intimidated, instead require the court to determine whether a prior litigation was determined to be frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the protected person. The bill would also expand the definition of a vexatious litigant to include a person who following a conviction, including a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere, of a crime that involves domestic violence, as defined, commenced, prosecuted, or maintained litigation against the victim that is determined to be frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the victim. This bill would authorize, in an action filed by the person convicted of the crimes against the victim of those crimes, the victim to file a petition, without fee, to have the person who was convicted of those crimes to be declared a vexatious litigant.

This bill would prohibit a plaintiff in a civil action, who has been deemed to be a vexatious litigant on the basis of the above-described provisions and who is the subject of a restraining order protecting the defendant, from seeking information from the defendant in discovery that is protected by the restraining order without prior authorization from the court. The bill would allow the court to grant a motion for disclosure of information protected by the restraining order only upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff, as prescribed. The bill would authorize a defendant who receives a discovery request in violation of these provisions to disregard the request without filing a motion for a protective order and would prohibit the court from issuing sanctions against a defendant who disregarded such a request in good faith.

This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from commencing litigation that is frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the other party. By expanding the scope of enjoined activities under a protective order, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would authorize, if, on or after the date a protective order is issued, the respondent and the petitioner are engaged in a legal proceeding initiated by the respondent, the petitioner to request a court order preventing the respondent from seeking discovery, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to consider the scope of the protective order and whether the information sought, or the discovery method selected, appears intended to circumvent the protective order.

This bill would also make a legislative finding recognizing that litigation abuse may emotionally or financially harm domestic violence survivors with unnecessary, irrelevant, or intrusive discovery.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.