SB 1192, the Reclaim Act, creates a new procedural tool for domestic violence survivors: a court-issued prefiling order that prevents an identified perpetrator from filing civil or family litigation or pursuing discovery against the survivor without prior court permission. The bill defines “abusive litigation” and “abusive discovery,” sets a standard for relief, and provides immediate procedural protections—fee waivers, electronic filing without charge, remote appearances, automatic stays, and a mechanism for sanctions and awards of fees and expenses.
The measure matters because it treats misuse of the civil litigation system as a form of ongoing abuse and gives courts specific authority to stop it. For practitioners and court administrators, the bill creates new motion practice, requires Judicial Council rulemaking and data-sharing, and shifts some costs of abusive litigation onto the perpetrator when the court finds merit in the survivor’s motion.
It also raises operational and due-process questions courts will have to resolve in practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill permits a victim to move for a prefiling order after notice and a hearing; the court must issue the order if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the perpetrator filed frivolous or abusive litigation or attempted abusive discovery. A prefiling order bars further filings or discovery against the victim unless the enjoined party obtains court permission; the statute also authorizes automatic stays, sanctions, security, dismissal in specified circumstances, and fee waivers and remote access for victims.
Who It Affects
Family and civil litigants in California courts—particularly alleged perpetrators of domestic violence and their counsel—will face new constraints on filing and discovery. Courts, court clerks, and the Judicial Council must implement forms, lists, and procedures; victim advocates and defense attorneys will need to adapt to new motion practice and evidentiary routines.
Why It Matters
This bill recognizes litigation as another tool of coercive control and gives courts a statutory mechanism to prevent and punish that behavior. It changes ordinary civil procedure dynamics by creating a preemptive gatekeeping function focused on protecting survivors rather than adjudicating merits first.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1192 adds a short new title to the California code called the Reclaim Act and begins by framing litigation abuse as a common continuation of domestic violence. It defines key terms—abusive discovery, abusive litigation, victim, perpetrator, enjoined party, frivolous—so the courts have a statutory vocabulary to describe harassment that takes place through lawsuits and discovery.
The bill explicitly ties those definitions to existing Family Code provisions and to the state’s definitions of domestic violence.
The core remedy is a prefiling order issued after notice and a hearing. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the perpetrator has engaged in frivolous or abusive litigation or discovery, the order bars the enjoined party from filing or seeking discovery against the victim in any civil or family matter unless and until the court gives permission.
The statute provides several procedural mechanics: motions for prefiling orders stay litigation in many circumstances, victims don’t have to plead while a pretrial motion is pending, and the court can require security for the victim’s benefit or dismiss meritless litigation under certain narrowly defined conditions.Victims receive immediate practical protections: filings under the new title are not subject to filing fees, the courts must accept electronic filings without charge, and any party may appear remotely at hearings. Clerks must report prefiling orders to the Judicial Council, which will maintain a registry and distribute it monthly to court clerks statewide; the Judicial Council also must prepare forms and rules to implement the title.
If an enjoined party disregards a prefiling order, the statute triggers an automatic stay and creates a clear path for victims to seek sanctions, attorney fees, lost wages, and other reasonable expenses—subject to the court’s finding that the enjoined party can pay.The bill preserves other civil and criminal remedies and declares the rights afforded to victims are in addition to existing rights, including the state constitutional victims’ rights under Marsy’s Law. It also states an intent to abrogate a recent appellate decision (Slaieh v.
Superior Court) that the Legislature deems inconsistent with these protections. Overall, the Reclaim Act creates a new, victim-centered procedural posture in civil and family courts intended to prevent the courtroom from being weaponized by abusers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A court may issue a prefiling order after notice and hearing if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the perpetrator filed frivolous or abusive litigation or conducted or attempted abusive discovery against the victim.
If the victim files for a prefiling order before trial, the underlying litigation is stayed and the victim need not file an answer until 10 days after either denial of the motion or, if the order is granted, 10 days after the required security is furnished.
When the court finds no reasonable probability the enjoined party will prevail, it can require that party to furnish security for the victim’s benefit; in narrowly defined circumstances—where litigation is frivolous and the filer was represented when filing but later proceeds in propria persona—the court may dismiss the case.
Clerks must send copies of prefiling orders to the Judicial Council, which will keep a record of enjoined parties and monthly circulate that list to all court clerks; the Judicial Council must also issue forms and rules to implement the title.
Victims get waived filing fees and free electronic filing and may appear remotely without charge; courts must stay litigation for violations and may award sanctions, attorney fees, lost wages, and other reasonable expenses if the enjoined party is reasonably likely to be able to pay.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and legislative findings
Declares the title the Reclaim Act and summarizes legislative findings about the prevalence of domestic violence and the phenomenon of litigation abuse. The findings frame litigation abuse as part of coercive control and set the statute’s public-safety and survivor-protection purpose—useful context for courts asked to prioritize safety over procedural formality.
Definitions tailored to litigation abuse
Defines the statute’s operative terms—abusive discovery, abusive litigation, perpetrator, enjoined party, victim of domestic violence, frivolous, and prefiling order—largely by reference to existing Family Code and civil-law concepts. Those definitions constrain what motions can allege and tie the statute to familiar standards like the Family Code’s notion of litigation involving children or domestic relations, and the Code of Civil Procedure’s definition of frivolous.
Enumerated rights of domestic violence victims in civil and family courts
Specifies basic rights for victims during civil and family proceedings—fair treatment, privacy protections, safety considerations, and notice of remedies under this title and related family-code protections. It applies Marsy’s Law victims’ rights to civil/family contexts and expressly seeks to overrule the Slaieh appellate decision, signaling legislative intent that courts should treat these rights broadly rather than narrowly.
Filing and access accommodations for victims
Bars filing fees for documents filed under the Reclaim Act, requires courts to accept those filings electronically without charge, and allows any party, attorney, support person, or witness to appear remotely at hearings under this title at no cost. The section also preserves a victim’s right to have a support person in court under existing Family Code provisions—practical features intended to reduce cost and safety barriers to using the new remedy.
Prefiling orders: standard, scope, and procedural mechanics
The substantive heart of the bill authorizes courts, after notice and hearing and on a preponderance standard, to issue prefiling orders that bar an enjoined party from filing litigation or conducting discovery against the victim unless the court first permits it. The provision establishes stay rules (including the victim’s pleading delay and a stay when motions are made pretrial), empowers courts to require security for victims when there is no reasonable probability the enjoined party will prevail, and allows dismissal in a specific scenario where litigation is frivolous and an attorney’s withdrawal results in in propria persona filings. It also permits denial of requests ex parte and sets hearing procedures consistent with Family Code §6309 while clarifying that rulings on prefiling motions are not determinations on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Reporting and rulemaking by the Judicial Council
Requires court clerks to provide copies of prefiling orders to the Judicial Council, which must maintain a record of enjoined parties and distribute a monthly list of those persons to court clerks statewide. The Judicial Council is also tasked with promulgating and updating court forms and rules needed to implement the new title—creating a centralized administrative infrastructure for consistency but also raising privacy and operational design questions for implementation.
Automatic stay, sanctions, and ability-to-pay inquiry
Establishes that if an enjoined party attempts to serve, file, or seek discovery without permission, litigation and discovery are automatically stayed. It gives victims an explicit claim for sanctions, attorney fees, lost wages, and other reasonable expenses incurred to respond or stay safe, but conditions awards on a court finding that the enjoined party has or is reasonably likely to have the ability to pay—mirroring Family Code §270’s affordability inquiry and limiting awards where a defendant is indigent.
Cumulative remedies
Clarifies that the rights and remedies created by this title are in addition to any other civil or criminal remedies available to victims. This preserves parallel civil and criminal enforcement pathways and prevents the new statutory mechanism from being read as the exclusive remedy.
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
- Domestic violence survivors who face litigation abuse — the bill gives them a statutory motion to block continued legal harassment, fee waivers, remote access, and a route to recover costs and lost wages when courts find abuse.
- Survivors previously deterred from seeking civil or family relief — by lowering financial and logistical barriers (no filing fee, free e-filing, remote hearings) and permitting stays, the statute reduces the practical costs of engaging the court to protect safety or parental rights.
- Victim advocates and counselors — clearer statutory definitions and mandatory Judicial Council forms should streamline advocacy and enable more consistent referrals and court support.
- Family and civil court judges — the statute equips judges with explicit authority and remedies to address litigation misconduct tied to domestic violence rather than treating it as ordinary adversarial zeal.
- Attorneys representing survivors — they gain an additional tactical and protective tool that can reduce client exposure to abusive discovery and costly procedural fights.
Who Bears the Cost
- Perpetrators who use litigation as harassment — they face filing and discovery restrictions, potential security requirements, dismissal risk in tight scenarios, sanctions, and fee awards if the court finds abuse.
- Defense and plaintiff attorneys for enjoined parties — they may face increased prefiling motion practice, potential professional and client-management complications, and the risk their client will be required to post security or pay sanctions.
- Court administration and the Judicial Council — both will need to create, maintain, and circulate a statewide registry of enjoined parties, produce and update forms and rules, and manage increased motion dockets and privacy protections.
- Low-income pro se litigants and legal-services providers — the security and ability-to-pay inquiries, together with additional motion practice, could complicate access for indigent litigants and shift workload to legal aid organizations.
- Parties with legitimate but emergency filings — automatic stays triggered by prefiling motions could delay time-sensitive claims and require courts to balance immediate needs against the risk of harassment.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to stop the weaponization of courts against survivors while preserving access to justice for defendants; the central dilemma is how to give victims quick, effective protection without creating a new gatekeeper that improperly blocks legitimate claims or invites inconsistent application across judges and counties.
SB 1192 rests on several implementation and doctrinal trade-offs. The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and broad statutory definitions of abusive litigation/discovery make it feasible for survivors to secure relief, but they also raise a risk of chilling meritorious filings if judges apply the statute unevenly.
The statute attempts to limit overreach—by allowing filing with court permission, conditioning awards on ability to pay, and by requiring hearings—but those safeguards will depend on court training and consistent Judicial Council forms.
Operationally, maintaining a monthly, statewide list of enjoined parties creates privacy and safety tensions: the list helps clerks identify restricted filers, but circulating names broadly could endanger survivors or reveal sensitive case dynamics. The requirement that judges determine ability to pay before awarding fees also means many victims may never recover costs if the enjoined party lacks assets, undermining the deterrent effect.
Finally, the dismissal rule tied to representation-then-in-pro-per scenarios is narrowly tailored but may produce perverse incentives where counsel withdrawal becomes a tactical device, forcing courts to make fact-intensive determinations about counsel conduct and client status.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.