SB 916 amends Code of Civil Procedure Section 529.2 to make the statute’s undertaking (security‑for‑cost) regime available to defendants facing suits that prevent or delay a student housing project owned by a public university. The bill folds “student housing project” into the same framework that already covers low‑ or moderate‑income development projects, allowing defendants to move for a bond when they allege the plaintiff brought the action in bad faith or to delay the project.
The change matters because it shifts the litigation calculus for campus housing: plaintiffs challenging qualifying campus projects could face a court order to post security for costs and damages (subject to judicial consideration of undue economic hardship), while developers and university owners gain a stronger tool to guard against delay. The amendment therefore affects CEQA and other project challenges involving public university‑owned student housing and could alter who brings suits and how those suits are financed and litigated.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill extends CCP §529.2 to cover ‘student housing projects’ owned by public universities, letting defendants move for an undertaking (bond) when a suit would prevent or delay a qualifying project. The motion must allege the action is without merit and brought in bad faith, vexatiously, to delay, or to thwart the project’s low‑ or moderate‑income nature.
Who It Affects
Public universities that own campus housing, their developers and contractors, lenders and local governments pursuing campus housing, and the community, advocacy, or environmental plaintiffs who use CEQA or other civil actions to challenge those projects.
Why It Matters
The change reallocates litigation risk toward plaintiffs in campus housing cases, potentially speeding construction timelines for public university projects while increasing the financial barrier to filing or maintaining challenges—especially in CEQA litigation where delay is often the relief sought.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 916 inserts a new category—‘student housing project’—into the existing CCP §529.2 framework that allows defendants to seek security for costs when a plaintiff’s suit would prevent or delay a qualifying development. The statute already applies to development projects that meet low‑ or moderate‑income requirements; SB 916 treats certain campus housing owned by public universities the same way.
The bill includes student support spaces (dining, academic, and related facilities) within the definition, so the protected project is not limited to beds alone.
Under the statute defendants must bring a noticed motion asking the court to require the plaintiff to post an undertaking as security for costs and damages that might flow from delays. The motion must assert that the action is without merit and was filed in bad faith, vexatiously, to cause delay, or to frustrate the low‑ or moderate‑income character of the project.
The court evaluates admissible evidence and may limit the amount of any bond or decline to require it if the plaintiff shows the bond would cause undue economic hardship; the statute also caps a plaintiff’s liability under the undertaking at $500,000.SB 916 makes clear the rule applies to civil actions brought under CEQA (Public Resources Code §21167) and other challenges to qualifying projects. There is a procedural safety valve: if the court finds the plaintiff would suffer undue economic hardship a bond can be reduced or not imposed.
Separately, if a developer later alters the housing plan in bad faith so the project ceases to meet applicable low‑ or moderate‑income standards, the developer must reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of obtaining the undertaking. Lastly, the bill contains a technical, nonsubstantive edit to Civil Code §3344.1 concerning digital replicas of deceased personalities that does not change substantive rights under that statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 916 adds a statutory definition of “student housing project”: housing facilities to be occupied by students and owned by a public university, including dining, academic, and student support service spaces.
A defendant can move for a bond when a plaintiff’s suit prevents or delays the project; the motion must allege the suit is without merit and was filed in bad faith, vexatiously, to delay, or to thwart the project’s low‑ or moderate‑income nature.
The court must consider evidence that posting a bond would cause the plaintiff undue economic hardship and may reduce or decline to impose the bond accordingly.
A plaintiff’s liability under an imposed undertaking is capped at $500,000.
If the developer changes the housing plan in bad faith so it no longer qualifies as low‑ or moderate‑income housing, the developer becomes liable for the plaintiff’s cost of obtaining the undertaking.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds student housing projects to eligible development projects
Subsection (a) expands the universe of projects that can trigger an undertaking motion to include ‘student housing projects’ (as defined later). It retains the statute’s reach to actions under CEQA (PRC §21167) and other civil suits that delay or prevent a qualifying project. Practically, defendants in campus housing disputes now have the same procedural route to demand security for costs that developers of low‑ and moderate‑income housing already had.
Judicial consideration of hardship and cap on liability
Subsection (b) prescribes how courts must handle an undertaking motion: plaintiffs can present admissible evidence that posting a bond would cause undue economic hardship, and courts must factor that in when setting the bond amount or declining to impose one. The subsection also sets a $500,000 ceiling on the plaintiff’s liability under the undertaking, an explicit numeric limit that frames risk assessments for both plaintiffs and defendants.
Developer reimbursement if project is changed in bad faith
Subsection (c) creates a remedy for plaintiffs who posted or secured an undertaking: if the developer later alters the project in bad faith so it no longer meets low‑ or moderate‑income requirements, the developer must reimburse the plaintiff for the undertaking cost. That creates a deterrent against post‑litigation manipulation of project characteristics to avoid the statute’s intent but raises practical proof and enforcement issues (see Fine Print).
Defines ‘student housing project’ narrowly
Subsection (d) defines ‘student housing project’ specifically as campus housing owned by a public university and explicitly includes attendant facilities such as dining and student support spaces. The narrow ownership requirement means privately owned student housing or projects on private campus land do not trigger this statutory pathway, limiting the amendment’s scope to public‑university projects.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing 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
- Public universities and their project developers — gain a tool to request security for costs when litigation threatens to delay campus housing, reducing financial exposure from project‑stopping suits.
- Contractors, lenders, and other project finance stakeholders — benefit indirectly because the greater likelihood of a bond or the prospect of reimbursed costs reduces the chance of prolonged injunctions and financing disruptions.
- Local governments and campus administrators — can advance campus housing goals with a lower risk of disruptive litigation delays, helping meet student housing needs and affordable housing targets.
- Project sponsors of qualifying low‑ or moderate‑income housing — already covered by §529.2 and reinforced by this extension to campus projects, which preserves the statute’s original protective function for socially targeted housing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Community groups, neighbors, and advocacy organizations — face higher financial barriers to bringing or maintaining suits challenging public university housing projects, potentially chilling public‑interest litigation.
- Individual plaintiffs with limited resources — may be unable to fund an undertaking even when their claim has merit, unless the court finds undue economic hardship.
- Trial courts and judges — will need to adjudicate more contested motions over undertakings and undue hardship, adding procedural burdens and fact‑intensive hearings.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel and small plaintiff organizations — bear increased litigation financing risk and may need to alter strategy or decline to file meritorious claims because of bonding exposure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a single dilemma: protect public university projects from litigation‑driven delays (and the financial uncertainty that causes) or preserve low‑cost access to courts for public‑interest and neighbor challenges—especially in CEQA cases—where delay is often the only effective remedy. SB 916 privileges project continuity and developer predictability at the likely expense of raising the price of public oversight through litigation.
SB 916 trades quicker project completion and greater protection for developers and public university owners against delay, for higher upfront financial risk to plaintiffs and additional procedural litigation. That trade‑off raises predictable implementation questions: how will courts evaluate ‘bad faith’ changes by developers long after an undertaking is posted; what standard of proof will satisfy a showing that a bond would cause ‘undue economic hardship’; and how practical is enforcement of a reimbursement obligation against a developer (especially public entities)?
The statute’s narrow ownership requirement (must be owned by a public university) both limits its reach and creates a potential circumvention incentive: developers might structure ownership, leasing, or management arrangements to fall outside the public‑university definition. The $500,000 cap on liability is administratively clear but arbitrary as a policy lever—some projects face higher delay costs, while many plaintiffs could be chilled by a smaller required bond.
Finally, applying the rule to CEQA actions intersects with longstanding public participation policy: courts will be asked to balance expedited construction timelines against the public’s ability to use litigation to enforce environmental and procedural rights.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.