California Assembly Bill AB859

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/25
• Refer: 3/3/25
• Report Pass: 4/8/25
• Engrossed: 4/21/25
• Refer: 4/21/25
• Refer: 5/7/25
• Report Pass: 6/25/25
• Refer: 6/25/25
• Refer: 7/7/25

Caption

An act to amend Section 1038 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil procedure.

Impact

This amendment is significant as it alters how defense costs can be recovered in civil actions. By including demurrers under the situations where recovery can be sought, the bill aims to protect defendants against potential litigants who file cases without a justified basis. This change is particularly relevant in civil proceedings under the Government Claims Act and cases regarding indemnity or contribution. If passed, it could streamline the process for defendants seeking cost recovery, which may influence how attorneys advise clients on the feasibility of pursuing these matters in court.

Summary

Assembly Bill 859, introduced by Assembly Member Macedo, seeks to amend Section 1038 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The bill expands the existing provisions that allow defendants or cross-defendants in civil proceedings to recover defense costs if a court determines that a plaintiff or intervenor did not bring their action in good faith or with reasonable cause. Previously, recovery of these costs was limited to certain motions like summary judgment or directed verdict. With AB 859, the possibility of recovering defense costs is extended to include situations where a demurrer is filed.

Conclusion

Overall, AB 859 reflects a legislative push to recalibrate the balance of interests in civil litigation, particularly in managing the costs associated with unfounded claims. If enacted, it will require courts to carefully evaluate the motivations behind legal actions, further influencing the dynamics between plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases.

Contention

One notable point of contention surrounding AB 859 pertains to how it might affect the access to justice for plaintiffs, especially those with limited resources who may now face greater financial risks when bringing their claims. Critics argue that the potential for significant cost awards against unsuccessful plaintiffs could deter them from seeking justice in the first place. Additionally, there may be concerns about what constitutes 'good faith' and 'reasonable cause,' which could lead to varied interpretations and applications of the law, potentially complicating future litigation.