SB 678 would add Section 529.3 to the Code of Civil Procedure to let a defendant in any civil action — including CEQA suits under Public Resources Code §21167 — move for a court order requiring the plaintiff to post an undertaking (bond) to secure costs and damages the defendant may incur if the litigation prevents or delays a project that will perform fire prevention activities (as defined in PRC §4124). The motion requires the defendant to show the action is without merit and was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for delay, or to thwart the project.
The bill caps a plaintiff’s liability under the bond at $500,000, allows the plaintiff to present evidence that posting a bond would cause undue economic hardship (including for members of unincorporated associations), and authorizes the court to decline to impose the bond if it would cause undue hardship. It is drafted as an urgency statute to take effect immediately.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates CCP §529.3 allowing defendants to file a noticed motion asking the court to require a plaintiff to post an undertaking when the suit (or requested relief) delays or prevents a project that will engage in fire‑prevention activities. The defendant must show the suit is meritless and brought in bad faith or for delay.
Who It Affects
Project proponents and contractors carrying out fuel‑treatment, vegetation management, or other PRC §4124 fire‑prevention activities; plaintiffs (including community groups and environmental challengers) who sue to block or enjoin those projects; and California trial courts asked to decide undertaking motions.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a targeted financial hurdle designed to speed deployment of fire‑prevention projects by shifting litigation risk onto challengers, while preserving a judge’s discretion to deny a bond where it would cause undue hardship. For practitioners it introduces a new motion practice, evidentiary disputes over bad faith and delay, and potential strategic incentives to file or defend suits differently.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 678 adds a new tool to California civil procedure aimed at cases that interfere with projects the Legislature labels as fire‑prevention activities (the bill uses the definition in PRC §4124). If a plaintiff files suit or seeks injunctive relief and that filing prevents or delays the project, the defendant can bring a noticed motion asking the court to require the plaintiff to post an undertaking — essentially a bond — to secure any costs or damages the defendant will suffer as a result of the delay through the end of the case.
To obtain the undertaking, the defendant must persuade the court that the litigation is without merit and that the plaintiff brought the action in bad faith, vexatiously, to delay, or to thwart the project. The plaintiff can respond with admissible evidence that posting a bond would create undue economic hardship for the plaintiff or, if an unincorporated association, for its members; the court must weigh that evidence when setting the bond amount.
The statute caps a plaintiff’s liability under the undertaking at $500,000 and expressly permits the court to refuse to impose a bond if any bond would cause undue economic hardship.Practically speaking, the bill creates a short litigation dance: defendants will prepare motions aimed at both the merits and the plaintiff’s motives, while plaintiffs will need to gather evidence about their finances and the public‑interest nature of their claims. Courts will be asked to make comparative factual findings — whether the suit lacks merit and whether the plaintiff acted in bad faith — and to translate delay into a dollar estimate of costs and damages, all before final resolution on the merits.
The urgency clause in the bill signals that proponents intended the rule to apply immediately to ongoing and future projects that meet the statutory definition.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The defendant may move for an undertaking when a plaintiff’s suit or request for relief (including injunctions) prevents or delays a project that will engage in fire‑prevention activities as defined by PRC §4124.
To win the motion the defendant must show the action is without merit and was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for delay, or to thwart the project — a combined merits‑and‑motive standard.
The court must consider admissible evidence of undue economic hardship from the plaintiff (or, for unincorporated associations, its members) when setting the undertaking amount and may decline to impose a bond if any amount would cause undue hardship.
A plaintiff’s financial liability under an undertaking ordered under §529.3 cannot exceed $500,000.
SB 678 is drafted as an urgency statute to take effect immediately upon enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Motion for undertaking when litigation delays fire‑prevention projects
This subsection defines the trigger and procedure for a defendant’s motion. It covers any civil action (explicitly including CEQA actions brought under PRC §21167) where the suit or a requested remedy prevents or delays a project that will carry out fire‑prevention activities. The defendant must bring a noticed motion asking the court to require an undertaking to secure costs and damages that may accrue because of the delay. Practically, this imports a pre‑trial, interlocutory motion into cases affecting fire‑prevention projects and forces courts to decide, early in the case, whether a bond should be posted.
Required showing: meritlessness plus bad faith or delay motive
The statute sets a two‑part showing for defendants: (1) the action is without merit, and (2) it was brought in bad faith, vexatiously, to delay, or to thwart the project. That combines a substantive assessment of the claim with an inquiry into the plaintiff’s motive, which will require the court to evaluate both legal and factual evidence at the undertaking stage — for example, whether the complaint lacks plausible legal basis and whether communications or patterns show an intent to obstruct the project.
Plaintiff’s evidence of undue economic hardship and court discretion
Subsection (b) lets the plaintiff present admissible evidence that posting a bond would cause undue economic hardship — including evidence concerning members of unincorporated associations. The court must consider that evidence when setting the undertaking and avoid imposing an amount that would produce undue hardship. If the court finds any bond would cause undue hardship, it has discretion to decline to impose an undertaking. This provision creates a specific hardship safety valve but leaves courts to define what qualifies as undue hardship in practice.
Monetary cap on plaintiff liability
The statute caps the plaintiff’s liability under an undertaking at $500,000. That cap limits exposure for plaintiffs while still permitting defendants to recover for delay‑related costs up to that amount. The cap shapes how courts will translate project delay into dollar figures and influences the strategic calculation for both challengers and project proponents.
Urgency clause: immediate effect
The bill declares itself an urgency statute to take effect immediately, citing the need to reduce catastrophic wildfire risks. As an urgency provision, it is written to apply without the usual waiting period following enactment, which means courts and litigants would need to apply §529.3 to qualifying cases immediately upon the statute’s effective date.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Project proponents and contractors carrying out fire‑prevention work — They gain a new procedural lever to push back on litigation that delays fuel‑reduction, mastication, shaded fuel break, or controlled‑burn projects by forcing challengers to post security for delay‑related costs.
- Public agencies responsible for wildfire mitigation (state and local fire and land management agencies) — The provision reduces financial risk from injunctions and may shorten the time to implement hazardous‑fuels work that agencies prioritize for public safety.
- Local governments and permittees — Entities facing opposition to routine fire‑prevention permits can use the undertaking motion to deter strategic or delay‑oriented litigation that would interrupt project schedules.
Who Bears the Cost
- Community groups, environmental nonprofits, and individual plaintiffs who challenge fire‑prevention projects — They face the prospect of being required to post bonds (up to $500,000) or demonstrating detailed financial hardship, which may deter meritorious suits by raising the cost of access to courts.
- Unincorporated associations and their members — The statute explicitly allows courts to consider member hardship, exposing members to financial scrutiny and potential personal economic consequences tied to association litigation.
- California trial courts and defense counsel — Courts will see new interlocutory motions requiring early factual findings about merit, motive, and monetary quantification of delay damages; defendants must develop evidentiary records showing lack of merit and bad faith, increasing pretrial workload and litigation costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: SB 678 prioritizes speed in deploying fire‑prevention projects by making litigation more costly for challengers, but in doing so it risks curbing access to judicial review and deterring meritorious challenges that protect environmental values or procedural compliance; the statute shifts the balance between rapid public‑safety work and robust pre‑project oversight, with courts left to decide where to draw the line.
SB 678 stitches a procedural remedy onto the policy goal of faster wildfire mitigation, but it leaves significant implementation questions unresolved. The statute requires courts to determine both the legal weakness of a claim and the plaintiff’s state of mind (bad faith, vexatiousness, or intent to delay) at the undertaking stage — a mixed legal‑factual inquiry that may itself require discovery and contested evidentiary hearings.
The bill does not specify the standard of proof for the defendant’s showing (preponderance, clear and convincing, etc.), nor does it provide guidance on how courts should calculate ‘costs and damages’ attributable to delay, which can vary dramatically by project scale and type of work (e.g., prescribed burns vs. contractor mobilization costs).
The undue‑hardship exception protects some plaintiffs, but the statute gives courts broad discretion to assess hardship without defining relevant factors (income, nonprofit status, public‑interest character of the suit, availability of third‑party funding). The $500,000 cap creates a bright line, but it may be too low to cover real delay costs on large projects or too high relative to the budgets of small community challengers.
Finally, because the bill covers “all civil actions,” it may reach suits that raise significant environmental or procedural defects that deserve full adjudication, not pretrial financial hurdles — raising a real risk of chilling legitimate litigation that holds agencies and contractors accountable.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.