Bill Commons

CA SB 678

dead

Fire prevention activities: challenges: undertaking.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper

Quick answers

Did CA SB 678 pass?

No. CA SB 678 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process (2026-02-02). Latest recorded action (2026-02-02): Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

What is CA SB 678 about?

Existing law governs procedures for specified civil actions, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Existing law requires a plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant under certain circumstances, such as when the plaintiff challenges a low- or moderate-income housing development project for the purpose of delaying or thwarting the project. This bill would provide that, in a civil action brought to challenge a project that will engage in fire prevention activities, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a defendant may seek an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant if the bringing of the action or seeking by the plaintiff of particular relief, including injunctive relief, would result in preventing or delaying the project. The bill would require the defendant to show that the action is without merit and that it was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the project. The bill would permit a plaintiff in responding to such a motion to request that the amount of the undertaking be limited because it would result in economic hardship, as specified. This bill would authorize the court to order an undertaking not to exceed $500,000 or to decline to require an undertaking if the court finds that it would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Who sponsors CA SB 678?

Niello is the primary sponsor of CA SB 678.

Description

Existing law governs procedures for specified civil actions, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Existing law requires a plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant under certain circumstances, such as when the plaintiff challenges a low- or moderate-income housing development project for the purpose of delaying or thwarting the project. This bill would provide that, in a civil action brought to challenge a project that will engage in fire prevention activities, including those brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a defendant may seek an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking as security for costs and damages that may be incurred by the defendant if the bringing of the action or seeking by the plaintiff of particular relief, including injunctive relief, would result in preventing or delaying the project. The bill would require the defendant to show that the action is without merit and that it was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the project. The bill would permit a plaintiff in responding to such a motion to request that the amount of the undertaking be limited because it would result in economic hardship, as specified. This bill would authorize the court to order an undertaking not to exceed $500,000 or to decline to require an undertaking if the court finds that it would cause the plaintiff to suffer undue economic hardship. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Introduced
2025-02-21
Latest action
2026-02-02 — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Nielloauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

  1. 2025-02-21

    Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

    introduction,referral-committee

  2. 2025-02-24

    From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 24.

  3. 2025-02-24

    Read first time.

    reading-1

  4. 2025-03-05

    Referred to Coms. on JUD. and APPR.

    referral-committee

  5. 2025-04-08

    Set for hearing April 22.

  6. 2025-04-23

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 837.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  7. 2025-04-25

    Set for hearing May 5.

  8. 2025-05-05

    May 5 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  9. 2025-05-16

    Set for hearing May 23.

  10. 2025-05-23

    May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  11. 2026-02-02

    Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

    failure

Versions

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar

    2025-04-22 · pass · 13-0

    Member-level votes (13)
    • Allen: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Umberg: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Laird: yes
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • Ashby: yes
    • Valladares: yes
    • Niello: yes
    • Wiener: yes

  • Placed on suspense file

    2025-05-05 · pass · 7-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Wahab: yes

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB678

Attribution

Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Source and document changesStatus and relationship changes

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=SB 678. 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.