An act to amend Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions.
Summary
SB 916 amends California’s Code of Civil Procedure to expand an existing bond/undertaking requirement for lawsuits that seek to stop or delay certain housing developments. Under current law, a defendant in a challenge to a qualifying low- or moderate-income housing project can ask the court to require the plaintiff to post security for costs and damages if the case appears meritless and brought in bad faith or for delay. This bill extends that same procedure to student housing projects, defined as housing facilities occupied by students of one or more campuses and owned by a public university, including related dining, academic, and support spaces.
The bill also preserves the court’s ability to reduce the bond or waive it entirely if the plaintiff shows undue economic hardship, and it keeps the plaintiff’s potential liability under the section capped at $500,000. It further retains the rule that if a developer later changes a project in bad faith so it no longer qualifies as low- or moderate-income housing, the developer may have to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of obtaining the undertaking. The bill includes a separate, nonsubstantive change to Civil Code Section 3344.1 regarding digital replicas of deceased personalities, but the operative policy change is the expansion of the housing-project undertaking rule to student housing.
In practical terms, SB 916 affects civil litigation involving student housing development projects, especially lawsuits that seek injunctions or other relief that could delay construction. It gives developers of qualifying student housing a tool to seek security for litigation costs and damages when they argue a challenge is without merit and brought in bad faith, while still allowing courts to account for plaintiffs’ financial hardship. The bill does not create a new cause of action or change the underlying housing approval standards; it changes the litigation procedure and risk allocation for certain project challenges.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s history is strongly favorable and noncontroversial. It advanced with unanimous committee and floor support in the available votes, including a 13-0 committee vote and a 36-0 Senate consent calendar vote. The absence of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials and the bill’s placement on the consent calendar suggest it was viewed as a technical or limited policy adjustment rather than a major contested measure.
The main point of potential contention is the same one that typically surrounds anti-delay provisions in housing litigation: supporters are likely to view the bill as discouraging frivolous or bad-faith lawsuits that can stall needed housing, while critics may worry it could raise the cost and risk of bringing legitimate challenges, particularly for community groups or other plaintiffs with limited resources. The hardship waiver and bond cap appear designed to address that concern, but the bill still shifts leverage toward project proponents in disputes over student housing development.
Impact
SB 916 amends Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.2 to add student housing projects to the category of housing developments for which a defendant may seek an undertaking from a plaintiff challenging the project. This means lawsuits that could prevent or delay qualifying student housing developments may trigger a court-ordered bond for costs and damages if the action is found to be without merit and brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for delay, or to thwart the project’s housing purpose. The bill leaves intact the existing hardship protections, the $500,000 liability cap, and the reimbursement rule for bad-faith project changes by the developer. It also makes a nonsubstantive change to Civil Code Section 3344.1 concerning digital replicas of deceased personalities.
Sentiment
The available legislative history indicates broad support and little visible opposition. The bill passed the Senate committee stage unanimously and then passed the Senate consent calendar with a 36-0 vote, suggesting it was treated as a routine or technical measure. No committee transcripts were provided, but the voting pattern and consent-calendar placement point to a generally positive reception.
Contention
The likely area of contention is whether extending the undertaking requirement to student housing will deter meritless delay tactics or instead chill legitimate public-interest litigation. Supporters would emphasize faster delivery of student housing and protection against bad-faith lawsuits; opponents would likely focus on the financial burden of posting a bond, especially for community groups, students, or nonprofit plaintiffs. The bill’s economic-hardship exception and bond cap are the main safeguards addressing those concerns.