Civil Procedure: recovery of defense costs.
Summary
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.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Aug 2025
Assembly Passage
Apr 2025
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 19, 2025
Last action Aug 29, 2025
Maddy AI version diff · 1 comparison
What changed between versions
02/19/25 - Introduced
→
AB859
·
1 edit
MINOR
No substantive policy changes were made between these two versions of AB 859. The diff reflects only a reformatting of the bill from a traditional legislative document layout (with line numbers and page headers) to a web page presentation (with navigation menus, search tools, and site links). The actual statutory text of Section 1038 of the Code of Civil Procedure is identical in both versions.
TECHNICAL
The bill text was reformatted from a printed legislative document style (with line numbers, page headers like '99' and 'AB 859', and column layout) to a web page format with navigation elements such as skip-to-content links, search boxes, and site menus. No changes to the substantive legal language were made.
Floor votes · Assembly Apr 21, 2025
How they voted
73–0
Passed · 6 other
Total votes 79
Apr 21, 2025
D
Democratic60
91% Yea
R
Republican19
94% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
11
Key actions
5
Committee
7
Aug 29, 2025
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Jul 7, 2025
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jun 25, 2025
Upper · Passed
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.
upper
May 7, 2025
Committee
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and APPR.
upper
Apr 21, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1176.)
lower
Apr 8, 2025
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 8).
lower
Mar 3, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 20, 2025
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Ali Macedo
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 859
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 859. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline