Cal. CCP § 1775.5
This is the official text of Cal. CCP § 1775.5, part of California’s Code of Civil Procedure — sets the procedural rules for civil lawsuits in California courts, including filing deadlines, discovery, and judgments.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
Official statutory text
[Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 201, Sec. 1. (AB 1523) Effective January 1, 2026. Repealed as of January 1, 2027, by its own provisions. See later operative version added by Sec. 2 of Stats. 2025, Ch. 201.]
(a) The court shall not order a case into mediation where the amount in controversy exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). The determination of the amount in controversy shall be made in the same manner as provided in Section 1141.16 and, in making this determination, the court shall not consider the merits of questions of liability, defenses, or comparative negligence.
(b) This section shall remain in effect until January 1, 2027, and as of that date is repealed.
[Repealed (in Sec. 1) and added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 201, Sec. 2. (AB 1523) Effective January 1, 2026. Operative January 1, 2027, by its own provisions.]
(a) The court shall not order a case into mediation unless all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The amount in controversy does not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). The determination of the amount in controversy shall be made in the same manner as provided in Section 1141.16 and, in making this determination, the court shall not consider the merits of questions of liability, defenses, or comparative negligence.
(2) The case has been set for trial.
(3) At least one party has notified the court of its interest in mediation.
(4) There are no ongoing discovery disputes impacting the case.
(5) The parties have been notified of their option to stipulate to a mutually agreeable mediator.
(6) The parties have the ability to mediate through the use of remote technology upon the stipulation of all parties.
(b) If the parties do not stipulate to a mutually agreeable mediator within 15 days of the date the case is submitted to mediation, the court shall select a mediator, at no cost to the parties, pursuant to standards adopted by the Judicial Council.
(c) All parties and counsel attending the mediation shall comply with subdivision (a) of Rule 3.894 of the California Rules of Court, except that the parties may utilize any means of remote technology in accordance with the stipulation provided in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a).
(d) Mediation ordered pursuant to subdivision (a) shall conclude in the form of a mutually acceptable agreement or statement of nonagreement, as described in Section 1775.9, no later than 120 days before the trial date described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any mediation shall not delay the trial date described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
(e) The determination and any stipulation of the amount in controversy shall be without prejudice as to any finding on the value of the case.
(f) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2027.
(a) The court shall not order a case into mediation where the amount in controversy exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). The determination of the amount in controversy shall be made in the same manner as provided in Section 1141.16 and, in making this determination, the court shall not consider the merits of questions of liability, defenses, or comparative negligence.
(b) This section shall remain in effect until January 1, 2027, and as of that date is repealed.
[Repealed (in Sec. 1) and added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 201, Sec. 2. (AB 1523) Effective January 1, 2026. Operative January 1, 2027, by its own provisions.]
(a) The court shall not order a case into mediation unless all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The amount in controversy does not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). The determination of the amount in controversy shall be made in the same manner as provided in Section 1141.16 and, in making this determination, the court shall not consider the merits of questions of liability, defenses, or comparative negligence.
(2) The case has been set for trial.
(3) At least one party has notified the court of its interest in mediation.
(4) There are no ongoing discovery disputes impacting the case.
(5) The parties have been notified of their option to stipulate to a mutually agreeable mediator.
(6) The parties have the ability to mediate through the use of remote technology upon the stipulation of all parties.
(b) If the parties do not stipulate to a mutually agreeable mediator within 15 days of the date the case is submitted to mediation, the court shall select a mediator, at no cost to the parties, pursuant to standards adopted by the Judicial Council.
(c) All parties and counsel attending the mediation shall comply with subdivision (a) of Rule 3.894 of the California Rules of Court, except that the parties may utilize any means of remote technology in accordance with the stipulation provided in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a).
(d) Mediation ordered pursuant to subdivision (a) shall conclude in the form of a mutually acceptable agreement or statement of nonagreement, as described in Section 1775.9, no later than 120 days before the trial date described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any mediation shall not delay the trial date described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
(e) The determination and any stipulation of the amount in controversy shall be without prejudice as to any finding on the value of the case.
(f) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2027.
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in California?
Find a California lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.