New CA Secretary of State Rule for Business Accounts

Effective August 1, 2026, the California Secretary of State now requires user access on a company’s online business entity account before anyone can file a Statement of Information electronically. Since many companies are required to file Statements of Information in California, we want to flag this change now. As a reminder, corporations file a Statement of Information every year, within the filing period tied to the anniversary month of incorporation, while LLCs file every two years, based on the anniversary month of formation. A filing is also required whenever key details change, such as the registered agent, business address, or officers and directors. No one can file the statement online without established user access, and failure to timely file can result in penalties and suspension in California. If someone in your organization already has user access to your company’s online business entity account, any party requesting access, such as your law firm or registered agent, will need that person to grant permission. The Secretary of State will send an email giving the option to grant Basic Online Access (limited to filing Statements of Information), Full Online Access (which allows filing of all documents, including amendments and termination documents), or to […]

August 20, 2026 SAN JOSE, Calif. Hoge Fenton is pleased to announce that nine of its attorneys have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America and Ones to Watch, with recognitions spanning the practices covered by the firm’s multi-service platform, including construction, real estate, commercial litigation, employment, tax, trusts and estates, professional liability, and family law. The following Hoge Fenton attorneys were recognized, listed with their practice areas: Eugene Ashley: Litigation – Construction Daniel W. Ballesteros: Commercial Litigation; Litigation – Real Estate; Real Estate Law Alison P. Buchanan: Commercial Litigation; Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Sean A. Cottle: Real Estate Law Timothy Maximoff: Tax Law; Trusts and Estates Sarju Naran: Litigation – Labor and Employment Natasha M. Parrett: Family Law Nathan Roselin: Ones to Watch – Family Law Ariel Siner: Ones to Watch Trust & Estate Litigation “This recognition reflects what we see every day at Hoge Fenton: attorneys who are deeply committed to their clients and respected by their peers. Being selected by fellow lawyers across so many practice areas speaks to the depth of talent across the firm. I am proud and privileged […]

California Proposition 45—the Expedited Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative—is on the November 2026 ballot and could materially alter CEQA practice for a defined category of essential projects. The practical effects: This initiative has the potential to streamline infrastructure projects throughout California. It would accelerate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)’s permitting process for qualifying housing, water, clean energy, healthcare, public safety, broadband, education, and transportation projects. Among other things, it would impose a 30-day deadline on agencies to determine whether an application for a project is complete, shift applicable deadlines from calendar days to business days, and require permit decisions to be issued concurrently with environmental review. Additionally, an action aimed to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an agency’s approval of a project shall be commenced within 30 days from the date the public agency files a notice of determination or notice of exemption. The action or proceeding shall be completed within 270 days, inclusive of original and appellate court proceedings. The court may, in its own discretion, extend this deadline up to an additional 90 days. The initiative would also limit public comment periods for environmental impact reports (EIRs) for essential projects to 45 days. […]

On June 25, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion which clarifies how agencies must apply CEQA’s “Class 1” categorical exemption for existing facilities.  In Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (S287414), the Court confirmed that a Class 1 Exemption applies only when a project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing or former use, and agencies cannot invoke Class 1 merely because they believe environmental impacts will be insignificant. The Court also flagged—but did not decide—whether agencies may impose environmental mitigations, while simultaneously asserting that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Summary The Court held that a Class 1 Exemption (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15301) turns on whether a project is truly a negligible expansion or a change of an existing or former use, not upon an agency’s view that environmental effects are minor. The case arose from an attempt by an agency to assert a Class 1 Exemption in connection with a proposal to convert a long-dormant oil extraction well into a waste water injection well.  The Court held that approach exceeded what a Class 1 Exemption allows.  The Court left open whether mitigation can be paired with a categorical […]