An act to amend Section 3301 of the Civil Code, relating to damages. An act to add Section 3344.4 to the Civil Code, relating to damages.
AB 2393 would create a new civil remedy for false imprisonment and false arrest cases in which the defendant used certain aggravating tactics. A prevailing plaintiff could elect statutory damages of $10,000 for each qualifying act, including wearing a face covering to conceal identity, using handcuffs or other restraints, forcibly transporting the victim in a vehicle, or brandishing a firearm or other serious weapon. The bill is aimed at situations the Legislature describes as especially traumatic and difficult to value in ordinary damages, and it is intended to streamline litigation and improve compensation for victims.
The bill also caps the total award under this new provision at $250,000 per incident, makes all liable defendants jointly and severally liable, and preserves the availability of punitive or exemplary damages. It expressly excludes claims against peace officers, custodial officers, and the public entities that employ them. In addition, the bill makes a nonsubstantive change to Civil Code Section 3301, which concerns damages for breach of contract, but the main substantive effect is the creation of Civil Code Section 3344.4 governing false imprisonment and false arrest remedies.
AB 2393 would add a new statutory damages framework to the Civil Code for certain false imprisonment and false arrest actions, changing how damages may be calculated in those cases when specified aggravating conduct is present. It would not alter the underlying definitions of false imprisonment or false arrest, but it would give plaintiffs an alternative to proving actual damages and would impose joint and several liability among defendants for awards under the new section. The bill would also leave punitive damages intact and would carve out peace officers, custodial officers, and their employing public entities from the new remedy. Its amendment to Civil Code Section 3301 is nonsubstantive and does not appear to change existing contract-damages law in any material way.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment. The bill advanced with majority support in committee, including a 10-2 vote on one action and a 9-3 vote on another, indicating that most members supported moving it forward. The stated rationale in the bill text emphasizes victim compensation, accountability for offenders, and the difficulty of quantifying emotional distress in false arrest and false imprisonment cases, which likely contributed to its positive reception.
The main points of contention appear to center on the scope and structure of the new damages remedy. Potential concerns include whether statutory damages of $10,000 per qualifying act, combined with joint and several liability and a $250,000 per-incident cap, could increase litigation exposure or encourage higher-value claims. Another likely issue is the bill’s exclusion of peace officers and custodial officers, which creates a clear carveout for public-law enforcement contexts and may reflect sensitivity to policing-related liability. The split committee votes suggest some members may have questioned the breadth of the remedy, its interaction with existing damages law, or its policy implications for defendants accused of false arrest or false imprisonment.