Thus, the following statutes, among a host of others, have been held to be “remedial”: California’s general automobile financial responsibility law, Vehicle Code Sections 410-418.5 (Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Phx. Constr. Co., 46 Cal. 2d 423, 434-35 (1956)); Labor Code provisions governing wages, hours and working conditions (Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1026-27 (2012)); Codeof Civil Procedure Section 170.6, governing peremptory challenges to judges (Pickett v. Super. Ct., 203 Cal. App. 4th 887, 892 (2012)); Health and Safety Code Section 1424, which applies to long- term health care facility licensees cited for regulatory violations (Cal. Ass’n ofHealth Facilities v. Dept. ofHealth Services, 16 Cal. 4th 284, 295 (1997)):; Code of Civil Procedure Section 526a, California’s taxpayer standing statute (Blair v. Pitchess, 5 Cal. 3d 258 (1971)); Proposition 65 (People ex rel. Lungren v. Super. Ct., 14 Cal. 4th 294, 314 (1996)); -50- SFACTIVE-903 160359. 1 e The mechanics’ lien laws (Connolly Dev., Inc. vy. Super.