AB 1950 authorizes the presiding judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to issue an order allowing that court to require mediation for any civil case, despite the $75,000 amount-in-controversy limit found in Section 1775.5. If the presiding judge opts in, all other mandatory provisions of Section 1775.5 still apply to those mediations.
The bill makes the opt-in power temporary: the court must deliver an initial report to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees by January 31, 2028, and then annually, showing the number of cases sent to mediation, the number whose trial dates were delayed, and the number that produced full or partial settlements; it also asks for breakdowns by case type where feasible. The statute sunsets on January 1, 2032.
At a Glance
What It Does
Gives the Los Angeles Superior Court’s presiding judge the discretionary authority to order any civil matter into mediation even when the dispute exceeds the $75,000 threshold that would otherwise prohibit court-ordered mediation. The bill preserves every other mandatory requirement of existing Section 1775.5 and imposes a statutory reporting obligation to the Legislature on a set schedule.
Who It Affects
Directly affects litigants and counsel in Los Angeles Superior Court civil cases, court administrators who will manage scheduling and data collection, and mediators who may see increased referrals. Indirectly affects insurers, self-insured employers, and businesses that litigate high-value civil claims in Los Angeles.
Why It Matters
This creates a county-level experiment expanding court-directed mediation for higher-value disputes, with mandatory data reporting to evaluate outcomes. The provision could change litigation strategy, settlement timing, and court resource allocation in the state’s largest trial court while remaining time-limited for legislative review.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1950 carves out an exception to a statutory dollar cap on court-ordered mediation for one court: the Los Angeles Superior Court. Under current law, starting January 1, 2027, courts generally cannot send cases to mediation if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
This bill lets the presiding judge of the Los Angeles court override that dollar barrier by issuing an order that authorizes mediation for any civil case in the county.
The bill is careful to preserve the remaining structure of the mediation regime: every mandatory element contained in Section 1775.5 still governs these cases except for the monetary limitation. In practice that means the court must follow the same procedural requirements tied to court-ordered mediation under 1775.5 (timing, notices, and other statutory obligations) while using the new authority to expand which cases are eligible.
The statute uses permissive language — the presiding judge "may" issue the order — so the expansion is discretionary, not automatic.AB 1950 also builds in legislative oversight. If the presiding judge issues the expansion order, the Superior Court must prepare a report to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees by January 31, 2028, and then once a year.
The report must enumerate cases ordered into mediation, identify how many mediations led to trial-date delays, and state how many resulted in full or partial settlements; the court must break out these data by case type when feasible and format the report in compliance with specified Government Code data standards.Finally, this experiment is temporary: the statute is explicitly set to expire on January 1, 2032. That sunset gives the Legislature time to assess the reported data and decide whether to extend, modify, or make permanent the broader ability of courts to order mediation for higher-value civil matters.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 1775.16 authorizes the presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court to permit court-ordered mediation for any civil case regardless of the $75,000 amount-in-controversy limit in Section 1775.5.
All mandatory provisions of Section 1775.5 continue to apply to those mediations except for the dollar threshold—meaning the procedural requirements in 1775.5 remain binding.
The court must send a report to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees by January 31, 2028, and annually thereafter, listing: number of cases ordered to mediation; number of cases with delayed trial dates after mediation; and number of cases with full or partial settlements due to mediation.
The reporting requirement asks the court, to the extent feasible, to disaggregate those statistics by case type and mandates compliance with Government Code Section 9795 for the report’s format and data handling.
The entire authorization is temporary: the statute is set to be repealed on January 1, 2032, under Government Code Section 10231.5.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Presiding judge may expand mediation eligibility
This subsection creates the core authority: the presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court may issue an order that allows the court to send any civil case to mediation, notwithstanding the amount-in-controversy cap in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1775.5. Practically, this is a county-specific exception rather than a statewide rule change and is discretionary — the judge decides whether to invoke it and how broadly to apply it within the court.
All other mediation requirements remain in force
Subdivision (b) makes clear that every other mandatory element of Section 1775.5 applies to cases sent to mediation under the presiding judge’s order. That preserves the statutory framework for court-ordered mediation (procedural steps, timing, and any listed safeguards) while removing only the dollar limit; parties and counsel must therefore follow the same compliance steps they would for a lower-value court-ordered mediation.
Legislative reporting: content and schedule
If the presiding judge issues the order, the court must report to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees by January 31, 2028, and annually thereafter. The report must include counts of cases ordered to mediation, cases with delayed trial dates after mediation, and cases achieving full or partial settlements as a result of mediation. These enumerations give the Legislature measurable outputs to assess whether the expanded mediation authority affects settlement rates and court scheduling.
Data breakdown and format requirements
The court is required, to the extent feasible, to break the required statistics down by case type, which helps interpret whether mediation works better in certain case categories. The report must also comply with Government Code Section 9795, which governs data standards and reporting format—meaning the Legislature expects the data to be machine-readable and standardized for analysis rather than raw or anecdotal.
Sunset clause
The statute automatically expires on January 1, 2032, under Government Code Section 10231.5. The sunset converts this expansion into a time-limited pilot, forcing a legislative decision later whether to codify, modify, or discontinue the practice based on the reported results.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Litigants in high-value civil disputes in Los Angeles: they gain access to structured mediation that courts can order, potentially unlocking faster settlements and lower litigation costs than trial.
- Mediators and ADR service providers: expanded court referrals for larger-dollar cases will increase demand for experienced mediators and could create new revenue streams and market opportunities.
- Insurance companies and self-insured defendants: broader mediation use may increase settlement opportunities and reduce trial exposure and defense expenses for commercially insured matters.
Who Bears the Cost
- Los Angeles Superior Court administration: the court must track additional data, adjust calendars when trial dates are delayed for mediation, and support implementation logistics—tasks that consume staff time and possibly budget.
- Parties who prefer adjudication: plaintiffs or defendants who want a judicial resolution may face postponed trial dates and added mediation costs (mediator fees, preparation time), shifting litigation timelines and expenses.
- Smaller law firms and litigants with limited resources: mandatory mediation without adequate fee-shifting or subsidies can impose out-of-pocket expenses and complexity that disadvantage less-resourced parties.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between using expanded court-ordered mediation to reduce case backlogs and promote settlements, versus protecting parties’ access to timely adjudication and preventing mediation from becoming a tool that delays trials or coerces settlements—especially in the absence of detailed, uniformly collected outcome and equity metrics.
The bill creates a controlled experiment while leaving many implementation details to the court. That raises measurement and comparability problems: the required counts (cases ordered, delays, settlements) are blunt indicators that omit case value, settlement amounts, the role of counsel in pushing for mediation, and whether settlements were equitable. "Partial settlement" is not defined, so courts will need uniform coding rules to ensure the Legislature receives consistent data.
The statute’s directive to comply with Government Code Section 9795 improves standardization, but practical data collection—pulling reliable case-type crosswalks and linking mediation outcomes to trial scheduling databases—will demand court investment.
Operational tensions are also real. Expanding mandatory mediation can reduce trials but can also be used strategically to delay adjudication or to pressure weaker parties into settlements.
Because the authority is discretionary, outcomes will vary depending on the presiding judge’s policies and local court management. The bill does not address cost-shifting or fee waivers for mediation, which matters for access to justice: if mediation imposes fees on litigants without parallel supports, lower-income parties may be disadvantaged.
Finally, the sunset forces a binary legislative choice after data collection, but the limited metrics may not answer crucial normative questions about fairness, systemic efficiency, or long-term effects on caseloads.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.