CA AB 1657
enactedDomestic violence: restraining orders.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 1657 pass?
Yes. CA AB 1657 has been enacted into law. Latest recorded action (2026-09-20): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 368, Statutes of 2026.
What is CA AB 1657 about?
Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte restraining order to prevent abuse based on reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. Existing law authorizes the order to be issued solely on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting the ex parte restraining order. Existing law requires the ex parte order to be issued or denied on the same day the application is submitted to the court, except as specified. Existing law prohibits an ex parte restraining order from being denied solely because the other party was not provided with notice. This bill would instead prohibit a court from requiring that notice be provided to the party to be restrained in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would also prohibit a court from requiring an explanation or declaration for not providing notice in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would prohibit a court from adopting or maintaining any rule, form, or practice that is inconsistent with these provisions.
Who sponsors CA AB 1657?
Rogers is the primary sponsor of CA AB 1657, joined by 7 cosponsors.
Description
Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte restraining order to prevent abuse based on reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. Existing law authorizes the order to be issued solely on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting the ex parte restraining order. Existing law requires the ex parte order to be issued or denied on the same day the application is submitted to the court, except as specified. Existing law prohibits an ex parte restraining order from being denied solely because the other party was not provided with notice. This bill would instead prohibit a court from requiring that notice be provided to the party to be restrained in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would also prohibit a court from requiring an explanation or declaration for not providing notice in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would prohibit a court from adopting or maintaining any rule, form, or practice that is inconsistent with these provisions.
- Introduced
- 2026-03-10
- Latest action
- 2026-09-20 — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 368, Statutes of 2026.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Rogersauthor
- Bauer-Kahancoauthor
- Connollycoauthor
- Dixoncoauthor
- Kalracoauthor
- Pachecocoauthor
- Stefanicoauthor
- Zburcoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-09-20
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 368, Statutes of 2026.
became-law
2026-09-20
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2026-08-24
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.
executive-receipt
2026-08-17
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.).
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-08-17
In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling.
committee-passage
2026-08-17
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5489.).
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-06-11
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-06-10
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 9).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-05-13
Referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2026-05-05
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2026-05-04
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 4899.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-04-28
Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-04-28
Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 4857.)
2026-03-12
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-03-11
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-03-10
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (March 10).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage
2026-02-17
Referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2026-01-30
From printer. May be heard in committee March 1.
2026-01-29
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass as amended.
2026-03-10 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Harabedian: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Papan: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Stefani: yes
AB 1657 Rogers Assembly Third Reading
2026-05-04 · pass · 76-0
Member-level votes (80)
- Jackson: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Krell: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Davies: yes
- Haney: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Ward: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Stefani: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Lee: yes
- Solache: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Soria: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Flora: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Berman: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Lackey: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Patel: yes
- Bains: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Ta: yes
- Fong: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Papan: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Addis: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Hart: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Chen: other
- Arambula: other
- Caloza: other
- Bennett: other
Do pass
2026-06-09 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Wahab: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Laird: yes
- Allen: yes
- Reyes: yes
- Niello: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Stern: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-09-21T23:05:31.821105Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 1657. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.