Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Assembly Bill

AB 859: Civil Procedure: recovery of defense costs.

Passed one chamber Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

AB 859 is a assembly bill introduced in the California Assembly on February 19, 2025. According to its official title, it concerns: Civil Procedure: recovery of defense costs. Primary sponsor: Alexandra Macedo (R). Most recent recorded action (August 29, 2025): In committee: Held under submission.

Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

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.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Republican 1

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Alexandra MacedoPrimary sponsorRepublicanAssembly33

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

  1. In committee: Held under submission.
  2. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
  3. 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.
  4. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and APPR.
  5. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1176.)
  7. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.
  8. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 8).
  9. Referred to Com. on JUD.
  10. From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
  11. Read first time. To print.

Sources

  1. California Legislative Information — pubinfo database export
  2. Official bill page