CA AB 859
in committeeCivil Procedure: recovery of defense costs.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Quick answers
Did CA AB 859 pass?
Not yet. CA AB 859 is in committee as of 2025-08-29 and has not come to a final vote. Latest recorded action (2025-08-29): In committee: Held under submission.
What is CA AB 859 about?
Existing law permits a defendant or a cross-defendant in a civil proceeding under the Government Claims Act, or in any civil action for indemnity or contribution, to seek from the court, at the time of the granting of a motion for summary judgment, directed verdict, motion for judgment in a nonjury trial, or nonsuit dismissing the moving party other than the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor, to determine whether the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor brought their proceeding in good faith and with reasonable cause. If the court determines that the proceeding was not brought in good faith or with reasonable cause, existing law requires the court to decide the reasonable and necessary defense costs incurred by party opposing the proceeding and to render judgment in favor of that party. Existing law applies these provisions only if the defendant or cross-defendant has made a motion for summary judgment, a motion for directed verdict, a motion for judgment in a nonjury trial, or nonsuit. This bill would expand the above provision to apply to a demurrer brought by a defendant or cross-defendant.
Who sponsors CA AB 859?
Macedo is the primary sponsor of CA AB 859.
Description
Existing law permits a defendant or a cross-defendant in a civil proceeding under the Government Claims Act, or in any civil action for indemnity or contribution, to seek from the court, at the time of the granting of a motion for summary judgment, directed verdict, motion for judgment in a nonjury trial, or nonsuit dismissing the moving party other than the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor, to determine whether the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor brought their proceeding in good faith and with reasonable cause. If the court determines that the proceeding was not brought in good faith or with reasonable cause, existing law requires the court to decide the reasonable and necessary defense costs incurred by party opposing the proceeding and to render judgment in favor of that party. Existing law applies these provisions only if the defendant or cross-defendant has made a motion for summary judgment, a motion for directed verdict, a motion for judgment in a nonjury trial, or nonsuit. This bill would expand the above provision to apply to a demurrer brought by a defendant or cross-defendant.
- Introduced
- —
- Latest action
- 2025-08-29 — In committee: Held under submission.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Macedoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-19
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
2025-02-20
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
2025-03-03
Referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2025-04-08
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 8).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-04-09
Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.
reading-1,reading-2
2025-04-21
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1176.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-04-21
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2025-05-07
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and APPR.
referral-committee
2025-06-25
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-07-07
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-08-29
In committee: Held under submission.
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass. To Consent Calendar.
2025-04-08 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Dixon: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Papan: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Stefani: yes
AB 859 Macedo Consent Calendar Second Day
2025-04-21 · pass · 73-0
Member-level votes (79)
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Flora: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Berman: yes
- Solache: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Davies: yes
- Fong: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Soria: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Haney: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Lee: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Chen: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Rivas: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Addis: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Ta: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Ward: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Hart: yes
- Patel: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Bains: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Krell: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Sharp-Collins: other
- Schultz: other
- Papan: other
- Gallagher: other
- Valencia: other
- Ramos: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2025-06-24 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Niello: yes
- Laird: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Stern: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Allen: yes
- Valladares: other
Placed on suspense file
2025-07-07 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Cabaldon: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Dahle: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
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 859. 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.