California Laws|Section 367.75.

                                                

367.75.  

(a) (1) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (d), in civil cases, when a party has provided notice to the court and all other parties that it intends to appear remotely, a party may appear remotely and the court may conduct conferences, hearings, and proceedings, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology.

(2) This section does not apply to any of the following type of proceedings:

(A) Any proceeding in matters identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of section 367.76.

(B) A juvenile justice proceeding covered by Section 679.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(b) Except as otherwise provided by law, the court may require a party or witness to appear in person at a conference, hearing, or proceeding described in subdivision (a), or under subdivisions (e) and (h), if any of the following conditions are present:

(1) The court with jurisdiction over the case does not have the technology necessary to conduct the conference, hearing, or proceeding remotely.

(2) Although the court has the requisite technology, the quality of the technology or audibility at a conference, hearing, or proceeding prevents the effective management or resolution of the conference, hearing, or proceeding.

(3) The court determines on a hearing-by-hearing basis that an in-person appearance would materially assist in the determination of the
conference, hearing, or proceeding or in the effective management or resolution of the particular case.

(4) The quality of the technology or audibility at a conference, hearing, or proceeding inhibits the court reporter’s ability to accurately prepare a transcript of the conference, hearing, or proceeding.

(5) The quality of the technology or audibility at a conference, hearing, or proceeding prevents an attorney from being able to provide effective representation to the attorney’s client.

(6) The quality of the technology or audibility at a conference, hearing, or proceeding inhibits a court interpreter’s ability to provide language access to a court user or authorized individual.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), an expert witness
may appear remotely absent good cause to compel in-person testimony.

(d) (1) Except as otherwise provided by law and subject to the limitations of subdivision (b), upon its own motion or the motion of any party, the court may conduct a trial or evidentiary hearing, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology, absent a showing by the opposing party as to why a remote appearance or testimony should not be allowed.

(2) (A) Except as provided in Section 269 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 69957 of the Government Code, if the court conducts a trial, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology, the official reporter or official reporter pro tempore shall be physically present in the courtroom.

(B) If the court conducts a trial, in whole or
in part, through the use of remote technology, upon request, the court interpreter shall be physically present in the courtroom.

(e) (1) Before the court with jurisdiction over the case may proceed with a remote conference, hearing, proceeding, or trial, the court shall have a process for a party, witness, official reporter, official reporter pro tempore, court interpreter, or other court personnel to alert the judicial officer of technology or audibility issues that arise during the conference, hearing, proceeding, or trial.

(2) The court shall require that a remote appearance by a party or witness have the necessary privacy and security appropriate for the conference, hearing, proceeding, or trial.

(3) The court shall inform all parties, particularly parties without legal representation, about
the potential technological or audibility issues that could arise when using remote technology, which may require a delay of or halt the conference, hearing, proceeding, or trial. The court shall make information available to self-represented parties regarding the options for appearing in person and through the use of remote technology.

(f) The court shall not require a party to appear through the use of remote technology. If the court permits an appearance through remote technology, the court must ensure that technology in the courtroom enables all parties, whether appearing remotely or in person, to fully participate in the conference, hearing, or proceeding.

(g) A self-represented party may appear remotely in a conference, hearing, or proceeding conducted through the use of remote technology only if they agree to do so.

(h) Any juvenile dependency proceeding may be conducted in whole or in part through the use of remote technology subject to the following:

(1) Any person authorized to be present may request to appear remotely.

(2) Any party to the proceeding may request that the court compel the physical presence of a witness or party. A witness, including a party providing testimony, may appear through remote technology only with the consent of all parties and if the witness has access to the appropriate technology.

(3) A court shall not require a party to appear through the use of remote technology.

(4) The confidentiality requirements that apply to an in-person juvenile dependency proceeding shall apply to a juvenile dependency proceeding conducted
through the use of remote technology.

(i) (1) Notwithstanding Section 8613.5 of the Family Code, in an adoption proceeding under Division 13 (commencing with Section 8500) of the Family Code, the court may conduct an adoption finalization hearing, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology, without the court finding that it is impossible or impracticable for either prospective adoptive parent to make the appearance in person.

(2) A court shall not require a party to appear through the use of remote technology.

(3) The confidentiality and privacy requirements that apply to an in-person adoption finalization hearing, including, but not limited to, the requirements in Section 8611 of the Family Code, apply to an adoption finalization hearing conducted through the use of remote
technology.

(j) For purposes of this section, a party includes a nonparty subject to Chapter 6 of Title 4 of Part 4 (commencing with Section 2020.010).

(k) Subject to the limitations in subdivision (b), this section is not intended to prohibit the use of appearances through the use of remote technology when stipulated by attorneys for represented parties.

(l) Consistent with its constitutional rulemaking authority, the Judicial Council shall adopt rules to implement the policies and provisions in this section to promote statewide consistency, including, but not limited to, the following procedures:

(1) A deadline by which a party must notify the court and the other parties of their request to appear remotely.

(2) Procedures and standards for a judicial officer to determine when a conference, hearing, or proceeding may be conducted through the use of remote technology. The procedures and standards shall require that a judicial officer give consideration to the limited access to technology or transportation that a party or witness might have.

(m) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed.

(Amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 34, Sec. 3. (SB 133) Effective June 30, 2023. Repealed as of January 1, 2026, by its own provisions.)

View Latest Rulings

Plaintiff also states that Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.75(d)(1) is still good law given that it has not yet expired and point out that there is no case law deeming the statute unconstitutional or in violation of the Confrontation Clause. Plaintiff argues the purpose of Section 367.75(d)(1) and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.672 also includes ease of access to the courts and reduction litigation cost. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.672.)

  • Name

    JSP MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC. VS PIERRE MOEINI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19BBCV00147

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In-Person Requirement under Section 367.75 Code of Civil Procedure section 367.75(b)(3) provides that a witness should be required to appear in person where an in person appearance would materially assist in the determination of the . . . proceeding.) (Code Civ. Proc. § 367.75(b)(3).)

  • Name

    FRONTLINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. VS BENJAMIN GLUCK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV26512

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

[See Civil Code of Procedure section 367.75, California Rule of Court, rule 3.672 and Local Rule 4-117.] Until instructed otherwise, all future hearings (not trials or settlement conferences) that require notice by any party must include local form SJPR-001 NOTICE OF TELECONFERENCE APPEARANCE AND REQUIREMENTS, which can be found on the Court’s website under local form. To make the telephone appearance call 209-992-5590, when prompted enter 6934 for the Bridge number and 5986 for the PIN.

  • Name

    JOSEPHINE V. VENTURA VS NIGAR B. KHAN

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UCC-2021-0000305

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2023

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

PLAINTIFF BEVERLEE LAPORTAS REMOTE APPEARANCE After considering the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 367.75, subdivisions (b) and (f), the court finds that an in-person appearance would materially assist the resolution of this action and therefore sustains Defendants objection to plaintiff Beverlee LaPortas notice of remote appearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.75, subd. (b)(3); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.672, subd. (h)(3)(B).)

  • Name

    MICHAEL LA PORTA, ET AL. VS DAVID W. AFFELD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV28515

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendants next argue that Code of Civil Procedure section 367.75 should control over section 2025.620, because the former was enacted more recently, and permits the Court to order an in-person appearance when it would materially assist in the determination of the proceeding. This argument is not well-taken. Section 367.75 concerns the use of live testimony over remote testimony, as addressed in the Courts July 26, 2022 order.

  • Name

    FRONTLINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. VS BENJAMIN GLUCK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV26512

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

View More Rulings

View Latest Dockets

55 Files
Filed

Sep 29, 2020

Status

Non-Jury Verdict

Judge

Hon. Shirley K. Watkins Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Shirley K. Watkins

Court

Van Nuys East

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

Filed

Oct 23, 2019

Status

Dismissal

Court

Superior

County

Ventura County, CA

Category

Civil Unlimited (Legacy)

115 Files
Filed

Sep 25, 2019

Status

Trial Verdict

Judge

Hon. Monica Bachner Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Monica Bachner

Court

Stanley Mosk

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Wrongful Eviction Case (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Property

Matter Type

Landlord-Tenant

135 Files
Filed

Jul 22, 2014

Status

Unknown

Judge

Hon. Michael J. Convey Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Michael J. Convey

Court

Van Nuys Courthouse East

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

233 Files
Filed

Oct 30, 2014

Status

Unknown

Judge

Hon. Randolph M. Hammock Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Randolph M. Hammock

Court

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

View More Dockets
Previous Section

Doc thumbnail Section 367.3.

Next Section

Doc thumbnail Section 367.76.

View Latest Documents

preview-icon Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/08/2021 08:56 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by E. Gregg,Deputy Clerk 1 Frances M. Campbell (SBN 211563) fcampbell@campbellfarahani.com 2 Nima Farahani (SBN 244492) nfarahani@campbellfarahani.com 3 Alexander G. Boone (SBN 279907) …

Case Filed

Sep 25, 2019

Case Status

Pending

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Dec 08, 2021

Category

Wrongful Eviction Case (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Monica Bachner Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Monica Bachner
preview-icon Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/08/2021 11:57 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by C. Ellison,Deputy Clerk 1 Sarju A. Naran (SBN 215410) sarju.naran@hogefenton.com 2 Giuliana R. Ferrante (SBN 313899) giuliana.ferrante@hogefenton.com 3 HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. …

Case Filed

Sep 29, 2020

Case Status

Court Finding - After Court Trial 01/26/2022

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Dec 08, 2021

Category

Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Shirley K. Watkins Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Shirley K. Watkins
preview-icon 2 pages

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 01/13/2022 TIME: 01:36:00 PM DEPT: 47 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Michael G. Bowman CLERK: K. Madden REPORTER/ERM: NONE BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: NONE CASE NO: 34-2018-00239655-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 08/28/2018 CASE TITLE: H…

Case Filed

Aug 28, 2018

County

Sacramento County, CA

Filed Date

Jan 13, 2022

Category

Other employment

Judge Hon. Richard K. Sueyoshi Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Richard K. Sueyoshi
preview-icon 2 pages

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 01/13/2022 TIME: 01:36:00 PM DEPT: 47 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Michael G. Bowman CLERK: K. Madden REPORTER/ERM: NONE BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: NONE CASE NO: 34-2018-00239655-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 08/28/2018 CASE TITLE: H…

Case Filed

Aug 28, 2018

County

Sacramento County, CA

Filed Date

Jan 14, 2022

Category

Unlimited Civil

Judge Hon. Richard K. Sueyoshi Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Richard K. Sueyoshi
preview-icon 2 pages

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/24/2022 TIME: 10:28:00 AM DEPT: 47 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Michael G. Bowman CLERK: K. Swift REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: CASE NO: 34-2019-00262122-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 08/02/2019 CASE…

County

Sacramento County, CA

Filed Date

Mar 24, 2022

Category

Unlimited Civil

Judge Hon. Emily E. Vasquez Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Emily E. Vasquez
View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope