Store Research
ASSEMBLY BILL 4049 (MOJONNIER – 1990)
CHAPTER 669, STATUTES OF 1990
Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-530-666-1917 or quote@legintent.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available. Please Note: Governor files did not exist prior to 1943.
Code of Civil Procedure section 338 was amended in 1990 to add the provisions of subdivision (k) following legislative passage of Assembly Bill 4049, which affected this section only. (See Exhibit #1b) The measure was introduced on March 2, 1990 by Assembly member Sunny Mojonnier and was sponsored by the Air Resources Board. (See Exhibits #1a, #7, and #9, document PE-2)
Assembly Bill 4049 was assigned to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary for consideration of the policy issues presented by the bill. (See Exhibits #3 and #5) This bill was heard on the Consent Calendar in each house, indicating it was unopposed, and received unanimous votes in all committees. On the floor of each house it was on the Special Consent Calendar, voted on as a unit with other non-controversial measures, rather than being voted individually. (See Exhibit #2)
Subsequent to approval by the Legislature, Assembly Bill 4049 was signed by Governor Deukmejian on September 9, 1990, and recorded by the Secretary of State on September 12, 1990 as Chapter 669 of the Statutes of 1990. (See Exhibits #1b and #2)
The analysis of Assembly Bill 4049 prepared by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary stated that the bill, “specifically provides a three-year statute of limitations for bringing actions to enforce California’s air pollution laws.” (See Exhibit #3)
The arguments in support of Assembly Bill 4049 are summarized in the Consent analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses, which stated:
The State Air Resources board, sponsor of this bill, states that this bill was introduced at the request of the administration to “enhance our ability to enforce the state’s air pollution laws.” The Board contends that the existing law is not clear whether a one-year or three-year statute applies to cases commenced to enforce air pollution laws. Enforcement of air pollution laws often involves imposition of “civil penalties” which suggest that suits to enforce such laws are subject to the one-year statute of limitation applicable to actions seeking forfeiture or penalty. The board contends that the actions it seeks are in fact nothing more than a method of compensating the public for the damage caused by a violation of the state’s air pollution law. Therefore, the longer three-year period to initiate suits based upon liability created by statute should be applicable.
The board further points out the (sic) “the Legislature has already amended the Code of Civil Procedure to specify that water pollution cases are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. This bill would provide a similar clarification for air pollution laws.”
(See Exhibit #7, page 2)