An act to amend, repeal, and add Section 1775.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil procedure.
AB 1523 revises California’s court-ordered mediation rules in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1775.5. Under existing law, a court could not order a civil case into mediation if the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000. This bill repeals that version of the statute effective January 1, 2027, and replaces it with a new framework that raises the threshold to $75,000 and adds several prerequisites before a court may compel mediation.
The new law requires that the case be set for trial, that at least one party has expressed interest in mediation, that there be no ongoing discovery disputes affecting the case, and that the parties have been informed they may stipulate to a mutually agreeable mediator. It also allows mediation by remote technology if all parties agree. If the parties do not agree on a mediator within 15 days after submission to mediation, the court must appoint one at no cost, following Judicial Council standards. Court-ordered mediation must end in either a mutually acceptable agreement or a statement of nonagreement, and it must be completed at least 120 days before trial without delaying the trial date.
AB 1523 amends and replaces Section 1775.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, expanding the category of civil cases eligible for court-ordered mediation from disputes involving $50,000 or less to those involving $75,000 or less. It also adds procedural safeguards and timing rules that govern when a court may order mediation, how mediators are selected, and how mediation may be conducted, including remote participation. The bill takes effect on January 1, 2027, giving courts and litigants time to adjust to the new mediation threshold and requirements.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. The voting history shows unanimous or near-unanimous approval at each recorded stage, with no recorded dissenting votes in committee or on the floor. The absence of committee transcript material suggests there was little publicly documented debate, and the bill advanced as a Judiciary Committee measure with strong consensus.
No major points of contention are reflected in the available record. The main policy choices embedded in the bill are the higher mediation threshold, the added conditions for court-ordered mediation, and the requirement that courts provide a mediator at no cost if the parties cannot agree. Potential areas of concern, if raised, would likely involve whether expanding mandatory mediation to higher-value cases could increase judicial intervention or affect litigation strategy, while supporters would likely emphasize efficiency, access to mediation, and reduced costs. However, the voting record does not show organized opposition.