Existing law establishes a small claims division, known as a small claims court, in each superior court. Existing law provides that the small claims court has jurisdiction over actions seeking certain forms of relief, including money damages in specified amounts and claims brought by natural persons, not exceeding $12,500, except as specified. Existing law prohibits a person from filing more than 2 small claims actions in any calendar year in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, except as specified.

This bill would increase the small claims court jurisdiction over actions brought by a natural person, except as specified, and other specified actions within the jurisdiction of the small claims court if the amount does not exceed $15,000. The bill would also allow a person to file no more than 6 3 small claims actions, as specified, in any calendar year.

Existing law establishes a small claims division, known as a small claims court, in each superior court. Existing law provides that the small claims court has jurisdiction over actions seeking certain forms of relief, including money damages in specified amounts and claims brought by natural persons, not exceeding $12,500, except as specified. Existing law prohibits a person from filing more than 2 small claims actions in any calendar year in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, except as specified.

This bill would increase the small claims court jurisdiction over actions brought by a natural person, except as specified, and other specified actions within the jurisdiction of the small claims court if the amount does not exceed $15,000. The bill would also allow a person to file no more than 10 6 small claims actions, as specified, in any calendar year.

Existing law establishes a small claims division, known as a small claims court, in each superior court. Existing law provides that the small claims court has jurisdiction over actions seeking certain forms of relief, including money damages in specified amounts and claims brought by natural persons, not exceeding $12,500, except as specified. Existing law prohibits a person from filing more than 2 small claims actions in any calendar year in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, except as specified.

This bill would increase the small claims court jurisdiction over actions brought by a natural person, except as specified, and other specified actions within the jurisdiction of the small claims court if the amount does not exceed $15,000. The bill would also allow a person to file no more than 10 small claims actions, as specified, in any calendar year.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1827 (Chen) - Small claims court: jurisdiction

Bill Summary:

AB 1827 would increase the small claims court jurisdiction limit up to $15,000 and increase the number of small claims actions that exceed $2,500 a person may file in any calendar year from two claims to three claims.

Fiscal Impact:

Likely major revenue loss annually to the courts by shifting some cases currently filed as limited civil matters into small claims court, resulting in lower filing fee revenue (the general small claims filing fee for claims between $5,000 and $12,500 is $75, compared to $370 for a limited civil filing in the $10,000 to $35,000 range). To the extent the bill diverts cases from limited civil to small claims, the Trial Court Trust Fund would lose approximately $295 per diverted case. However, small claims cases generally require fewer court resources than limited civil cases (no discovery, no attorney appearances, simplified procedures), partially offsetting the revenue loss through reduced workload.

Potentially major workload impact on small claims court calendars. Raising the various sub-limits (from $6,250 to $15,000) and the overall cap (from $12,500 to $15,000) would likely increase filings as cases that would have been filed as limited civil matters will shift to small claims and litigants who currently forgo filing because they are unwilling to pursue a limited civil action may now file in small claims court. Higher-value small claims cases may also take longer to adjudicate than lower-value cases, adding to calendar pressure. The bill would require operational changes, including updates to the Judicial Council Civil Case Management System, fee schedule, forms, instruction packets, website and Self-Help materials, and staff training. (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund)

Cost pressure of an unknown but potentially significant amount annually to adjudicate any additional filings. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would increase pressure to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Background:

For more than 100 years, California’s civil courts have been tiered depending on the amount of money, or potential damages, at controversy in a civil case. The “amount in controversy” generally refers to the amount of the demand--the recovery sought, or the value of the property, or the amount of the lien--that is in controversy in a civil action, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs. This tiered system is designed to expedite the resolution of simple matters, while providing more complex matters the necessary time for a proper adjudication.

In California, civil cases are divided into three separate categories roughly depending on the amount of money in controversy. Generally, cases that involve a demand of $5,000 or less, or $12,500 or less for natural persons, are adjudicated in small claims courts. Each county is mandated to establish such small claims divisions and to provide individual assistance to advise small claims litigants and potential litigants without charge. These cases are extremely informal, attorneys are generally not permitted to take part, and plaintiffs have a limited right to appeal. The object of such procedures is to dispense justice promptly, fairly, and inexpensively.

Limited civil cases are the next tier beyond small claims matters. The jurisdictional limit for such cases is $25,000. Such cases have limitations on the pleadings allowed and provide for case questionnaires to be served to facilitate the exchange of fundamental information regarding each party’s case. Discovery is carefully restricted in such cases, with parties only being authorized to serve a combination of 35 interrogatories (with no subparts), demands for document production, and requests for admission (without subparts). The parties are also limited to one oral or written deposition. Additional discovery may be conducted by stipulation of the parties or by authorization of the court, but only upon a showing that the moving party will be unable to prosecute or defend the action effectively without the additional discovery. Certain limited civil cases must be conducted as expedited jury trials unless a party opts out where certain criteria are met. Expedited jury trials have smaller juries and more limited peremptory challenges. The rules of evidence and all statutes and rules governing costs and attorney fees apply. However, the parties may agree to modify the rules and procedures and the implementing rules of court, subject to the court’s approval. Unlimited civil cases are the remainder of cases. Generally, these include cases where more than $25,000 is demanded or in cases involving other types of claims, such as certain title disputes or cases involving civil restraining orders.

Related Legislation:

SB 71 (Umberg) Chapter 861/2023 increased the amount in controversy limits for small claims court and limited civil cases.

AB 2781 (Judiciary) Chapter 98/2026 adjusted the filing fee statutes to reflect the current amounts in controversy that were enacted through SB 71 (Umberg).

Staff Comments:

The bill does not change the fee structure in Code of Civil Procedure 116.230 to reflect the jurisdictional change. For example, the dollar amount in controversy for money recovery increases from $6,250 to $15,000 but leaves the current $75 fee for claims over $5,000 unchanged. This further increases pressure on the General Fund to backfill the Trial Court Trust Fund.

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1827 (Author:Chen)

Version: March 18, 2026

Hearing Date: June 30, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: ME

SUBJECT

Small claims court: jurisdiction

DIGEST

This bill increases the amount in controversy limits for civil cases within the jurisdiction of the small claims court, as specified. This bill also prohibits a person from filing more than three small claims actions, instead of two, in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, anywhere in the state in any calendar year, as specified.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Civil matters in California courts are broken up into three separate tiers. The jurisdiction of each is largely determined by the amount in controversy in the underlying case. The lower tiers, small claims court and limited civil cases, provide for restricted discovery and representation rights. The goal of maintaining these lower tiers is to expeditiously, inexpensively, and fairly resolve more minor civil disputes.

SB 71 (Umberg, Ch. 861, Stats. 2023) was enacted to increase the jurisdictional limits of small claims and limited civil cases, which had not been updated in decades. SB 71 increased the threshold for cases to be brought small claims court brought by a natural defendant from $10,000 to $12,500, as specified. The bill also raised the limit for small claims court jurisdiction in other specified actions such as: from $5,000 to $6,250; from $2,500 to $3,125; from $6,500 to $8,125; and from $4,000 to $5,000.

The author brings this bill to increase the jurisdictional limits for small claims cases to $15,000. The bill also increases the number of times a person can file a small claims action in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500. Specifically, this bill prohibits a person from filing more than three small claims actions, instead of two, in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, anywhere in the state in any calendar year, as specified.

This bill is sponsored by the California Association of Collectors and supported by the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors. The Judicial Council of California is opposed to the bill. Should this bill pass out of this Committee, it will then be referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes, through the Small Claims Act, small claims divisions in each superior court and establishes procedural guidelines for minor civil disputes in order to expeditiously, inexpensively, and fairly resolve such matters (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 116.110 et seq.)
2. Provides that small claims courts have jurisdiction over specified cases, including for recovery of money, and enforcement of delinquent tax payments, if the amount demanded does not exceed specified amounts ranging from $3,125 to $8,125. In addition to this jurisdiction, the small claims court has jurisdiction over actions brought by a natural person that do not seek more than $12,500. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 116.220, 116.221.)
3. Requires each county to make available individual assistance to advise small claims litigants and potential litigants without charge. (Code Civ. Proc. § 116.260.)
4. Prohibits a person from filing more than two small claims actions in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, anywhere in the state in any calendar year, except as specified. (Code Civ. Proc. § 116.231.)
5. Provides that small claims actions do not require formal pleadings outside of a simplified claim form and do not permit pretrial discovery. Plaintiffs may not be represented by an attorney and have a limited right to appeal. The hearing and disposition must be informal with the object to dispense justice promptly, fairly, and inexpensively. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 116.310-116.330, 116.510-116.530, 116.710.)

This bill:

1. Increases the small claims court jurisdiction over actions brought by a natural person, except as specified, and other specified actions within the jurisdiction of the small claims court if the amount does not exceed $15,000.
2. Prohibits a person from filing more than three small claims actions, instead of two, in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, anywhere in the state in any calendar year, as specified.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

Small claims court was designed to provide a fast, low-cost, and accessible forum for resolving routine disputes. However, inflation and rising operating costs have outpaced the current cap. When claims exceed $6,250, businesses must either forgo recovery or pursue Superior Court litigation, which often requires attorneys, higher filing fees, and lengthy timelines. This creates economically irrational choices for modest disputes and weakens contract enforcement across the small business community.

This proposal modernizes California’s small claims system by increasing the jurisdictional limit for small businesses to $15,000 per case and allowing up to 10 filings per year. The reform maintains all existing safeguards, including the prohibition on attorney representation, judicial discretion and oversight, and simplified procedures and evidentiary standards. It does not expand legal complexity or reduce defendant protections.

Increasing the small claims limit to $15,000 and allowing 10 filings per year is a measured modernization that strengthens contract enforcement, supports small business economic stability, and reduces strain on California’s court system. This proposal updates and modernizes the small claims framework to reflect the realities of today’s economy.

2. Small claims jurisdictional limits were increased in 2024

The jurisdictional limits of the amount in controversy vary in small claims court and depend on the underlying action and whether a natural person brings the action. SB 71 (Umberg, Ch. 861, Stats. 2023) increased various small claims jurisdictional limits. Before SB 71, the jurisdictional limits ranged from $2,500 to $10,000. SB 71 increased the threshold for cases to be brought in small claims court by a natural defendant from $10,000 to $12,500. The bill also raised the limit for small claims court jurisdiction in other specified actions: from $5,000 to $6,250; from $2,500 to $3,125; from $6,500 to $8,125; and from $4,000 to $5,000. The limits reflect the unique nature of small claims court, including that litigants are not permitted to be represented by counsel, and were designed to ensure that more sophisticated plaintiff’s (i.e., business entities) could not prey upon average litigants. Supporters of AB 1827 argue that the current limits are too low due to inflation. The last increase before SB 71 was codified 15 years ago through SB 221 (Simitian, Ch. 64, Stats. 2011). SB 221 raised the jurisdictional limit for small claims court actions brought by a natural person from $7,500 to a limit of $10,000. SB 71 raised that amount to $12,500. This bill would raise that amount to $15,000 and also raise the jurisdictional limit in the other small claims court actions that currently have a limit of $3,125, $8125, and $5,000 to instead all have a limit of $15,000.

Existing law prohibits filing more than two cases with amount in controversy exceeding $2,500 annually in small claims court. This bill would instead prohibit the filing of more than three cases annually in small claims court where the amount in controversy exceeds $2,500.

3. Support

The California Association of Realtors writes the following in support of the bill:

In residential real estate transactions, disagreements occasionally arise over relatively small monetary amounts. These may involve issues such as the return of deposits, personal property left at a property after closing, or disputes over repairs or minor property damage. When these disputes exceed the small claims threshold, parties are often forced into more formal civil litigation, which can be costly, time-consuming, and disproportionate to the amount at issue.

By modestly increasing the jurisdictional limit, AB 1827 allows more of these smaller disputes to be resolved efficiently through the small claims process. This benefits consumers by providing a faster, more accessible forum for dispute resolution while helping reduce unnecessary strain on the broader court system.

Importantly, the bill maintains the fundamental structure and consumer-oriented nature of small claims court while simply updating the monetary threshold to better reflect current economic conditions.

According to the California Association of Collectors, sponsors of the bill:

We are sponsoring this legislation because it improves access to justice for all parties involved. Specifically, it:

1. Enables faster resolution of disputes, often in a single court appearance rather than prolonged litigation.

2. Reduces legal costs by maintaining the prohibition on attorney representation, eliminating expense pressures on either side.

3. Preserves due process protections, including notice requirements, evidence presentation, and judicial oversight.

4. Maintains a level playing field, as neither side may be represented by counsel in small claims court.

How This Reform Helps Small Businesses

This bill also provides practical and responsible support to small businesses by:

1. Improving cash flow stability through recovery of mid-level unpaid invoices.

2. Protecting payroll and jobs by supporting operational continuity.

3. Strengthening contract reliability by encouraging timely payment and compliance.

4. Reducing unnecessary financial write-offs that occur solely due to disproportionate litigation costs.

4. Opposition

The Judicial Council of California writes the following in opposition to this bill:

The Judicial Council opposes Assembly Bill 1827 (Chen), which (1) increases the jurisdiction of small claims court for actions brought by a natural person from $12,500 to $15,000, (2) increases the amount for most actions seeking recovery of money, a delinquent unsecured property tax, or in an attorney fee arbitration dispute from $6,250 to $15,000, and (3) allows a person to file no more than 3 small claims actions in any calendar year.

Frustrates the Purpose of Small Claims Court. Small claims courts are designed to be the people’s court, providing a more expedient, inexpensive, and informal way to resolve relatively small matters. Increasing the jurisdictional limits of small claims court so significantly across the board at one time is arguably inconsistent with California’s statutorily declared purpose of small claims court under Code of Civil Procedure 116.120 as a forum intended for resolving minor civil disputes brought by individuals who would otherwise have no other legal recourse to pursue their claims.

To further ensure that small claims courts are best able to provide a simple, inexpensive and informal path to resolve disputes, Code of Civil Procedure 116.530 prohibits attorneys from taking part in a hearing to represent a client. However, well-resourced parties will frequently consult with an attorney prior to their court date. The likelihood that a party with resources will retain an attorney in preparation for small claims court increases with the dollar amount of the case and disadvantages the unrepresented small claims litigant.

Doubles the Dollar Amount with no Increase in Filing Fees. AB 1827 more than doubles the dollar amount in controversy for money recovery to $15,000 but leaves the filing fee stagnant at the current $75 level for claims over $5,000. Generally, the complexity of a case increases with the dollar amount at issue. This means that small claims courts would be managing more complicated matters that take longer to resolve with no additional funding provided for judges, court commissioners, or court staff to handle the additional workload and no additional funding that would be required to update courts’ Civil Case Management Systems, fee schedules, forms, instructional packets, court websites, self-help materials, and updated staff training.

Increased Filings May Overwhelm Small Claims Court Calendars. By significantly raising the jurisdictional limit to over twice the current law, AB 1827 will likely increase the number of claims filed in two ways. The first will likely be an influx of lawsuits filed in small claims court that previously would have been filed as limited civil cases. The second will likely be an influx of claims that previously would not have been filed at all because the value of the case was too low to bring in limited civil court. Taken together, it is foreseeable that AB 1827 will significantly impact small claims court calendars with actions seeking money recovery, lengthening the time it takes to set, hear, and resolve matters brought by natural persons to small claims courts. Small claims court judicial officers report handling already-packed calendars and would be overwhelmed by the likely substantial increase in cases due to AB 1827.

SUPPORT

California Association of Collectors (Sponsors)

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

OPPOSITION

Judicial Council of California

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: AB 2781 (Committee on Judiciary, 2026) updates filing fees to reflect the threshold amounts of small claims and limited civil cases that were increased by SB 71 (Umberg, Ch. 861, Stats. 2023). AB 2781 is pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Prior legislation:

SB 71 (Umberg, Ch. 861, Stats. 2023) see Comment 2.

SB 221 (Simitian, Ch. 64, Stats. 2011) see Comment 2.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 77, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

**************

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1827 (Author:Chen)

Version: March 18, 2026

Hearing Date: June 30, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: ME

SUBJECT

Small claims court: jurisdiction

DIGEST

This bill increases the amount in controversy limits for civil cases within the jurisdiction of the small claims court, as specified. This bill also prohibits a person from filing more than three small claims actions, instead of two, in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, anywhere in the state in any calendar year, as specified.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Civil matters in California courts are broken up into three separate tiers. The jurisdiction of each is largely determined by the amount in controversy in the underlying case. The lower tiers, small claims court and limited civil cases, provide for restricted discovery and representation rights. The goal of maintaining these lower tiers is to expeditiously, inexpensively, and fairly resolve more minor civil disputes.

SB 71 (Umberg, Ch. 861, Stats. 2023) was enacted to increase the jurisdictional limits of small claims and limited civil cases, which had not been updated in decades. SB 71 increased the threshold for cases to be brought small claims court brought by a natural defendant from $10,000 to $12,500, as specified. The bill also raised the limit for small claims court jurisdiction in other specified actions such as: from $5,000 to $6,250; from $2,500 to $3,125; from $6,500 to $8,125; and from $4,000 to $5,000.

The author brings this bill to increase the jurisdictional limits for small claims cases to $15,000. The bill also increases the number of times a person can file a small claims action in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500. Specifically, this bill prohibits a person from filing more than three small claims actions, instead of two, in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, anywhere in the state in any calendar year, as specified.

This bill is sponsored by the California Association of Collectors and supported by the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors. The Judicial Council of California is opposed to the bill. Should this bill pass out of this Committee, it will then be referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes, through the Small Claims Act, small claims divisions in each superior court and establishes procedural guidelines for minor civil disputes in order to expeditiously, inexpensively, and fairly resolve such matters (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 116.110 et seq.)
2. Provides that small claims courts have jurisdiction over specified cases, including for recovery of money, and enforcement of delinquent tax payments, if the amount demanded does not exceed specified amounts ranging from $3,125 to $8,125. In addition to this jurisdiction, the small claims court has jurisdiction over actions brought by a natural person that do not seek more than $12,500. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 116.220, 116.221.)
3. Requires each county to make available individual assistance to advise small claims litigants and potential litigants without charge. (Code Civ. Proc. § 116.260.)
4. Prohibits a person from filing more than two small claims actions in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, anywhere in the state in any calendar year, except as specified. (Code Civ. Proc. § 116.231.)
5. Provides that small claims actions do not require formal pleadings outside of a simplified claim form and do not permit pretrial discovery. Plaintiffs may not be represented by an attorney and have a limited right to appeal. The hearing and disposition must be informal with the object to dispense justice promptly, fairly, and inexpensively. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 116.310-116.330, 116.510-116.530, 116.710.)

This bill:

1. Increases the small claims court jurisdiction over actions brought by a natural person, except as specified, and other specified actions within the jurisdiction of the small claims court if the amount does not exceed $15,000.
2. Prohibits a person from filing more than three small claims actions, instead of two, in which the amount demanded exceeds $2,500, anywhere in the state in any calendar year, as specified.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

Small claims court was designed to provide a fast, low-cost, and accessible forum for resolving routine disputes. However, inflation and rising operating costs have outpaced the current cap. When claims exceed $6,250, businesses must either forgo recovery or pursue Superior Court litigation, which often requires attorneys, higher filing fees, and lengthy timelines. This creates economically irrational choices for modest disputes and weakens contract enforcement across the small business community.

This proposal modernizes California’s small claims system by increasing the jurisdictional limit for small businesses to $15,000 per case and allowing up to 10 filings per year. The reform maintains all existing safeguards, including the prohibition on attorney representation, judicial discretion and oversight, and simplified procedures and evidentiary standards. It does not expand legal complexity or reduce defendant protections.

Increasing the small claims limit to $15,000 and allowing 10 filings per year is a measured modernization that strengthens contract enforcement, supports small business economic stability, and reduces strain on California’s court system. This proposal updates and modernizes the small claims framework to reflect the realities of today’s economy.

2. Small claims jurisdictional limits were increased in 2024

The jurisdictional limits of the amount in controversy vary in small claims court and depend on the underlying action and whether a natural person brings the action. SB 71 (Umberg, Ch. 861, Stats. 2023) increased various small claims jurisdictional limits. Before SB 71, the jurisdictional limits ranged from $2,500 to $10,000. SB 71 increased the threshold for cases to be brought in small claims court by a natural defendant from $10,000 to $12,500. The bill also raised the limit for small claims court jurisdiction in other specified actions: from $5,000 to $6,250; from $2,500 to $3,125; from $6,500 to $8,125; and from $4,000 to $5,000. The limits reflect the unique nature of small claims court, including that litigants are not permitted to be represented by counsel, and were designed to ensure that more sophisticated plaintiff’s (i.e., business entities) could not prey upon average litigants. Supporters of AB 1827 argue that the current limits are too low due to inflation. The last increase before SB 71 was codified 15 years ago through SB 221 (Simitian, Ch. 64, Stats. 2011). SB 221 raised the jurisdictional limit for small claims court actions brought by a natural person from $7,500 to a limit of $10,000. SB 71 raised that amount to $12,500. This bill would raise that amount to $15,000 and also raise the jurisdictional limit in the other small claims court actions that currently have a limit of $3,125, $8125, and $5,000 to instead all have a limit of $15,000.

Existing law prohibits filing more than two cases with amount in controversy exceeding $2,500 annually in small claims court. This bill would instead prohibit the filing of more than three cases annually in small claims court where the amount in controversy exceeds $2,500.

3. Support

The California Association of Realtors writes the following in support of the bill:

In residential real estate transactions, disagreements occasionally arise over relatively small monetary amounts. These may involve issues such as the return of deposits, personal property left at a property after closing, or disputes over repairs or minor property damage. When these disputes exceed the small claims threshold, parties are often forced into more formal civil litigation, which can be costly, time-consuming, and disproportionate to the amount at issue.

By modestly increasing the jurisdictional limit, AB 1827 allows more of these smaller disputes to be resolved efficiently through the small claims process. This benefits consumers by providing a faster, more accessible forum for dispute resolution while helping reduce unnecessary strain on the broader court system.

Importantly, the bill maintains the fundamental structure and consumer-oriented nature of small claims court while simply updating the monetary threshold to better reflect current economic conditions.

According to the California Association of Collectors, sponsors of the bill:

We are sponsoring this legislation because it improves access to justice for all parties involved. Specifically, it:

1. Enables faster resolution of disputes, often in a single court appearance rather than prolonged litigation.

2. Reduces legal costs by maintaining the prohibition on attorney representation, eliminating expense pressures on either side.

3. Preserves due process protections, including notice requirements, evidence presentation, and judicial oversight.

4. Maintains a level playing field, as neither side may be represented by counsel in small claims court.

How This Reform Helps Small Businesses

This bill also provides practical and responsible support to small businesses by:

1. Improving cash flow stability through recovery of mid-level unpaid invoices.

2. Protecting payroll and jobs by supporting operational continuity.

3. Strengthening contract reliability by encouraging timely payment and compliance.

4. Reducing unnecessary financial write-offs that occur solely due to disproportionate litigation costs.

4. Opposition

The Judicial Council of California writes the following in opposition to this bill:

The Judicial Council opposes Assembly Bill 1827 (Chen), which (1) increases the jurisdiction of small claims court for actions brought by a natural person from $12,500 to $15,000, (2) increases the amount for most actions seeking recovery of money, a delinquent unsecured property tax, or in an attorney fee arbitration dispute from $6,250 to $15,000, and (3) allows a person to file no more than 3 small claims actions in any calendar year.

Frustrates the Purpose of Small Claims Court. Small claims courts are designed to be the people’s court, providing a more expedient, inexpensive, and informal way to resolve relatively small matters. Increasing the jurisdictional limits of small claims court so significantly across the board at one time is arguably inconsistent with California’s statutorily declared purpose of small claims court under Code of Civil Procedure 116.120 as a forum intended for resolving minor civil disputes brought by individuals who would otherwise have no other legal recourse to pursue their claims.

To further ensure that small claims courts are best able to provide a simple, inexpensive and informal path to resolve disputes, Code of Civil Procedure 116.530 prohibits attorneys from taking part in a hearing to represent a client. However, well-resourced parties will frequently consult with an attorney prior to their court date. The likelihood that a party with resources will retain an attorney in preparation for small claims court increases with the dollar amount of the case and disadvantages the unrepresented small claims litigant.

Doubles the Dollar Amount with no Increase in Filing Fees. AB 1827 more than doubles the dollar amount in controversy for money recovery to $15,000 but leaves the filing fee stagnant at the current $75 level for claims over $5,000. Generally, the complexity of a case increases with the dollar amount at issue. This means that small claims courts would be managing more complicated matters that take longer to resolve with no additional funding provided for judges, court commissioners, or court staff to handle the additional workload and no additional funding that would be required to update courts’ Civil Case Management Systems, fee schedules, forms, instructional packets, court websites, self-help materials, and updated staff training.

Increased Filings May Overwhelm Small Claims Court Calendars. By significantly raising the jurisdictional limit to over twice the current law, AB 1827 will likely increase the number of claims filed in two ways. The first will likely be an influx of lawsuits filed in small claims court that previously would have been filed as limited civil cases. The second will likely be an influx of claims that previously would not have been filed at all because the value of the case was too low to bring in limited civil court. Taken together, it is foreseeable that AB 1827 will significantly impact small claims court calendars with actions seeking money recovery, lengthening the time it takes to set, hear, and resolve matters brought by natural persons to small claims courts. Small claims court judicial officers report handling already-packed calendars and would be overwhelmed by the likely substantial increase in cases due to AB 1827.

SUPPORT

California Association of Collectors (Sponsors)

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: AB 2781 (Committee on Judiciary, 2026) updates filing fees to reflect the threshold amounts of small claims and limited civil cases that were increased by SB 71 (Umberg, Ch. 861, Stats. 2023). AB 2781 is pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Prior legislation:

SB 71 (Umberg, Ch. 861, Stats. 2023) see Comment 2.

SB 221 (Simitian, Ch. 64, Stats. 2011) see Comment 2.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 77, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

**************

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1827

Author:(Chen)

As Amended Ver:March 18, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Increases and standardizes the amount in controversy limit for small claims court.

Major Provisions

1. Increases and standardizes the jurisdictional limits for small claims court to an amount in controversy of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), or less.
2. Increases the number of small claims filings with an amount in controversy in excess of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) a person may file in a calendar from two to three cases.

COMMENTS

In 2023, the Legislature restructured the amount in controversy levels for small claims, limited civil, and unlimited civil matters with the enactment of SB 71 (Umberg) Chap. 861, Stats. 2023. Unlike limited and unlimited civil matters, which generally had standard amount in controversy jurisdictional limits, small claims jurisdictional limits varied widely by case type. SB 71 modified some of the small claims jurisdictional limits but left others untouched. This bill raises and standardizes the jurisdictional limits for small claims court to $15,000 for all causes of action. The bill also provides litigants one additional small claims action per year for cases with an amount in controversy exceeding $2,500.

Unlike other civil matters, small claims court has varied jurisdictional limits. Prior to the enactment of SB 71, limited and unlimited civil cases had consistent jurisdictional limits. All matters exceeding the jurisdiction of small claims court yet with an amount in controversy of $25,000 were deemed limited civil cases and subject to specialized discovery and evidentiary rules. All cases exceeding $25,000 were deemed unlimited civil cases. SB 71 simply changed the $25,000 threshold to $35,000. For small claims court, however, the pre-SB 71 jurisdictional limits ranged from $6,250 to $10,000. SB 71 increased some of those thresholds, including the $10,000 cap to the $12,500 limit in existing law, but left other limits unchanged.

The variation in limits reflected the unique nature of small claims court, including that litigants are not permitted to be represented by counsel, and were designed to ensure that more sophisticated plaintiff's (i.e. business entities) could not prey upon average litigants. However, since the enactment of SB 71, the widely varying jurisdictional limits appear to be generating more confusion rather than solving problems, especially when unrepresented litigants are trying to determine the appropriate venue for which to file their civil case. Furthermore, the proponents of this bill contend that the recent bout of inflation that has plagued the post-pandemic economy has made the older limits less functional and forces more parties to hire expensive legal counsel and file their claim in limited civil jurisdiction.

Existing law limits parties' ability to file excessive amounts of small claims actions. One of the critical benefits of small claims court is that it permits parties to resolve relatively minor disputes efficiently and for a lower cost than adjudication in a traditional civil court. Because the courts are utilized by average Californians who are unrepresented by counsel, the existing law adopts safeguards to prevent the courts from being used by more sophisticated plaintiffs. One such safeguard is the existing law's limit on filing excessive amount of higher value cases in small claims court. Indeed, existing law prohibits filing more than two cases with amount in controversy exceeding $2,500 annually in small claims court. The proponents of this bill again contend that recent inflation has rendered this limit unworkable.

This bill seeks to standardize the jurisdictional limits of small claims court. Seeking to compensate for the impact of inflation, and to reduce confusion stemming from inconsistent jurisdictional limits, this bill standardizes the maximum amount in controversy level for all matters in small claims court at $15,000. While $15,000 is a significant amount of money to most Californians, increasing this limit does provide the ability for more disputes to be resolved without forcing average Californians to hire an attorney at the cost of hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per hour. Although some of the largest increases in the jurisdictional limits are for more complex business-to-business type cases, as noted below, amendments to the annual filing limits should dramatically reduce an opportunity for abuse of the small claims court by sophisticated litigants.

According to the Author

Small claims court was designed to provide a fast, low-cost, and accessible forum for resolving routine disputes. However, inflation and rising operating costs have outpaced the current cap. When claims exceed $6,250, businesses must either forgo recovery or pursue Superior Court litigation, which often requires attorneys, higher filing fees, and lengthy timelines. This creates economically irrational choices for modest disputes and weakens contract enforcement across the small business community.

This proposal modernizes California's small claims system by increasing the jurisdictional limit for small businesses to $15,000 per case and allowing up to three filings per year. The reform maintains all existing safeguards, including the prohibition on attorney representation, judicial discretion and oversight, and simplified procedures and evidentiary standards. It does not expand legal complexity or reduce defendant protections.

Increasing the small claims limit to $15,000 and allowing three filings per year is a measured modernization that strengthens contract enforcement, supports small business economic stability, and reduces strain on California's court system. This proposal updates and modernizes the small claims framework to reflect the realities of today's economy.

Arguments in Support

In support of this bill, California Civil Liberties Advocacy writes:

Small claims courts exist to ensure that ordinary Californians have access to a forum where disputes can be resolved efficiently and affordably without the complexity and expense of formal civil litigation. Unfortunately, the rising cost of living and doing business in California has steadily eroded the practical value of the current jurisdictional limits. Many disputes involving modest but meaningful sums—such as contractor disputes, unpaid personal debts, property damage, or consumer protection claims—now exceed the existing limits, forcing individuals to choose between abandoning legitimate claims or entering a costly and time-consuming civil litigation process.

AB 1827 addresses this problem by increasing the small claims jurisdictional cap to $15,000 and allowing individuals to file up to three higher-value claims annually, ensuring that the small claims system continues to serve its core function: providing accessible justice for everyday disputes. In practical terms, this reform helps middle-class Californians and small property owners resolve conflicts without the need to retain legal counsel, which can often exceed the value of the underlying claim.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Unknown fiscal impact on courts (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). The bill would shift some cases currently filed as limited civil matters into small claims court, resulting in lower filing fee revenue — the general small claims filing fee for claims between $5,000 and $12,500 is $75, compared to $370 for a limited civil filing in the $10,000 to $35,000 range. To the extent the bill diverts cases from limited civil to small claims, the TCTF would lose approximately $295 per diverted case. However, small claims cases generally require fewer court resources than limited civil cases (no discovery, no attorney appearances, simplified procedures), partially offsetting the revenue loss through reduced workload. The Judicial Council anticipates an unknown impact on small claims court calendars. Raising the various sub-limits (from $6,250 to $15,000) and the overall cap (from $12,500 to $15,000) would likely increase filings in two ways: cases that would have been filed as limited civil matters will shift to small claims, and litigants who currently forgo filing because they are unwilling to pursue a limited civil action may now file in small claims court. Higher-value small claims cases may also take longer to adjudicate than lower-value cases, adding to calendar pressure. The Judicial Council does not cite specific cost figures.
2. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate any additional filings. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the Trial Court Trust Fund to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26.

The Legislative Analyst's Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year.

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: March 18, 2026

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002601

Date of Hearing: April 15, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1827

Author:(Chen) – As Amended Ver:March 18, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill increases and standardizes the jurisdictional limit for small claims court to $15,000 for all causes of action and increases the number of small claims actions exceeding $2,500 that a person may file per calendar year from two to three.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Unknown fiscal impact on courts (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). The bill would shift some cases currently filed as limited civil matters into small claims court, resulting in lower filing fee revenue — the general small claims filing fee for claims between $5,000 and $12,500 is $75, compared to $370 for a limited civil filing in the $10,000 to $35,000 range. To the extent the bill diverts cases from limited civil to small claims, the TCTF would lose approximately $295 per diverted case. However, small claims cases generally require fewer court resources than limited civil cases (no discovery, no attorney appearances, simplified procedures), partially offsetting the revenue loss through reduced workload. The Judicial Council anticipates an unknown impact on small claims court calendars. Raising the various sub-limits (from $6,250 to $15,000) and the overall cap (from $12,500 to $15,000) would likely increase filings in two ways: cases that would have been filed as limited civil matters will shift to small claims, and litigants who currently forgo filing because they are unwilling to pursue a limited civil action may now file in small claims court. Higher-value small claims cases may also take longer to adjudicate than lower-value cases, adding to calendar pressure. The Judicial Council does not cite specific cost figures.
2. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate any additional filings. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the Trial Court Trust Fund to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, small claims court was designed to provide a fast, low-cost, and accessible forum for resolving routine disputes; however, inflation and rising costs have outpaced the current cap, forcing litigants into more expensive limited civil proceedings for relatively modest claims.
2. Background. In 2023, SB 71 (Umberg), Chapter 861, restructured the amount-in-controversy levels for civil matters, raising the limited/unlimited civil threshold from $25,000 to $35,000. SB 71 also increased some small claims limits — notably the general cap from $10,000 to $12,500 — but left several case-specific sub-limits at $6,250. The resulting variation in small claims jurisdictional limits has generated confusion for unrepresented litigants attempting to determine the appropriate venue for their claims. Existing law also limits parties to two small claims filings per year with an amount in controversy exceeding $2,500, a safeguard designed to prevent sophisticated business plaintiffs from using small claims court to litigate matters that should be filed as limited civil cases.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 17, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1827

Author:(Chen) – As Amended Ver:March 10, 2026

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: Small claims court: jurisdiction

KEY ISSUES:

1. should the amount in controversy limit for small claims CASES be increased to cases with a value of $15,000 of less?
2. Should litigants in small claims court be permitted to file three lawsuits with a value in excess of $2,500 in lieu of the current two per year?

SYNOPSIS

In response to the inflationary impacts of the post-pandemic economy, in 2023, the Legislature enacted SB 71 (Umberg) Chap. 861, Stats. 2023, to raise the jurisdictional limits for civil actions filed as a small claim, limited civil, or unlimited civil matter. While SB 71 was easily able to make consistent changes to limited and unlimited civil jurisdictions, the bill did not evenly apply to small claims matters. While the maximum small claims jurisdictional limit was raised from $10,000 to $12,500, several case-specific limits remained untouched. The author and proponents of this measure now claim that the widely varying jurisdictional limits for small claims matters are now generating confusion for litigants and forcing more Californians to spend thousands of dollars to hire legal counsel and litigate relatively minor claims as a limited civil matter.

Accordingly, this bill seeks to standardize small claims jurisdictional limits at $15,000 for all small claims matters. As proposed to be amended, the bill also modestly increases the amount of claims exceeding $2,500 a single litigant can file in small claims court in a calendar year from two to three cases.

This bill is supported by California Civil Liberties Advocacy and the California Association of Collectors. The proponents note that without increasing jurisdictional limits more Californians are being forced to hire expensive legal counsel to litigate relatively low value matters to the point that the cost of hiring an attorney may be more than the eventual judgment. While it appears that the Judicial Council may have some concerns related to potential workload impacts, as proposed to be amended, the bill has no registered opposition.

SUMMARY: Increases and standardizes the amount in controversy limit for small claims court. Specifically, this bill:

1. Increases and standardizes the jurisdictional limits for small claims court to an amount in controversy of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), or less.
2. Increases the number of small claims filings with an amount in controversy in excess of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) a person may file in a calendar from two to three cases.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a small claims court maintains jurisdiction over the following claims:
   1. For recovery of money, if the amount of the demand does not exceed six thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($6,250);
   2. To enforce payment of delinquent unsecured personal property taxes in an amount not to exceed six thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($6,250), as specified;
   3. To issue a writ of possession if the amount of the demand does not exceed six thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($6,250), as specified;
   4. To confirm, correct, or vacate a fee arbitration award not exceeding six thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($6,250) between an attorney and client that is binding or has become binding, or to conduct a hearing de novo between an attorney and client after nonbinding arbitration of a fee dispute involving no more than six thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($6,250), as specified; and
   5. For an injunction or other equitable relief only when a statute expressly authorizes a small claims court to award that relief. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 116.220 (a).)
2. Provides that, in addition to the matters outlined in 1), the small claims court has jurisdiction in an action brought by a natural person, if the amount of the demand does not exceed twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500). (Code of Civil Procedure Section 116.221.)
3. Prohibits a person from bringing more than two small claims actions worth more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) in a calendar year, as specified. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 116.231.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: In 2023, the Legislature restructured the amount in controversy levels for small claims, limited civil, and unlimited civil matters with the enactment of SB 71 (Umberg) Chap. 861, Stats. 2023. Unlike limited and unlimited civil matters, which generally had standard amount in controversy jurisdictional limits, small claims jurisdictional limits varied widely by case type. SB 71 modified some of the small claims jurisdictional limits but left others untouched. This bill would raise and standardize the jurisdictional limits for small claims court to $15,000 for all causes of action. The bill also provides litigants one additional small claims action per year for cases with an amount in controversy exceeding $2,500. In support of the bill, the author states:

Small claims court was designed to provide a fast, low-cost, and accessible forum for resolving routine disputes. However, inflation and rising operating costs have outpaced the current cap. When claims exceed $6,250, businesses must either forgo recovery or pursue Superior Court litigation, which often requires attorneys, higher filing fees, and lengthy timelines. This creates economically irrational choices for modest disputes and weakens contract enforcement across the small business community.

This proposal modernizes California’s small claims system by increasing the jurisdictional limit for small businesses to $15,000 per case and allowing up to three filings per year. The reform maintains all existing safeguards, including the prohibition on attorney representation, judicial discretion and oversight, and simplified procedures and evidentiary standards. It does not expand legal complexity or reduce defendant protections.

Increasing the small claims limit to $15,000 and allowing three filings per year is a measured modernization that strengthens contract enforcement, supports small business economic stability, and reduces strain on California’s court system. This proposal updates and modernizes the small claims framework to reflect the realities of today’s economy.

Unlike other civil matters, small claims court has varied jurisdictional limits. Prior to the enactment of SB 71, limited and unlimited civil cases had consistent jurisdictional limits. All matters exceeding the jurisdiction of small claims court yet with an amount in controversy of $25,000 were deemed limited civil cases and subject to specialized discovery and evidentiary rules. All cases exceeding $25,000 were deemed unlimited civil cases. SB 71 simply changed the $25,000 threshold to $35,000. For small claims court, however, the pre-SB 71 jurisdictional limits ranged from $6,250 to $10,000. SB 71 increased some of those thresholds, including the $10,000 cap to the $12,500 limit in existing law, but left other limits unchanged.

The variation in limits reflected the unique nature of small claims court, including that litigants are not permitted to be represented by counsel, and were designed to ensure that more sophisticated plaintiff’s (i.e. business entities) could not prey upon average litigants. However, since the enactment of SB 71, the widely varying jurisdictional limits appear to be generating more confusion rather than solving problems, especially when unrepresented litigants are trying to determine the appropriate venue for which to file their civil case. Furthermore, the proponents of this bill contend that the recent bout of inflation that has plagued the post-pandemic economy has made the older limits less functional and forces more parties to hire expensive legal counsel and file their claim in limited civil jurisdiction.

Existing law limits parties’ ability to file excessive amounts of small claims actions. One of the critical benefits of small claims court is that it permits parties to resolve relatively minor disputes efficiently and for a lower cost than adjudication in a traditional civil court. Because the courts are utilized by average Californians who are unrepresented by counsel, the existing law adopts safeguards to prevent the courts from being used by more sophisticated plaintiffs. One such safeguard is the existing law’s limit on filing excessive amount of higher value cases in small claims court. Indeed, existing law prohibits filing more than two cases with amount in controversy exceeding $2,500 annually in small claims court. The proponents of this bill again contend that recent inflation has rendered this limit unworkable.

This bill seeks to standardize the jurisdictional limits of small claims court. Seeking to compensate for the impact of inflation, and to reduce confusion stemming from inconsistent jurisdictional limits, this bill would standardize the maximum amount in controversy level for all matters in small claims court at $15,000. While $15,000 is a significant amount of money to most Californians, increasing this limit does provide the ability for more disputes to be resolved without forcing average Californians to hire an attorney at the cost of hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per hour. Although some of the largest increases in the jurisdictional limits are for more complex business-to-business type cases, as noted below, proposed amendments to the annual filing limits should dramatically reduce an opportunity for abuse of the small claims court by sophisticated litigants.

Proposed amendments ensure that corporations cannot abuse small claims court and should lessen concerns about judicial workloads. As currently in print, the bill would permit a person to file up to six small claims actions with values exceeding $2,500 in a calendar year. The existing limit of two such cases per year is designed to ensure that sophisticated business plaintiffs cannot abuse the small claims system by filing an excessive number of small claims cases that really should be filed as a limited civil matter. While recognizing that inflation may have created more, relatively, minor matters with amount in controversy over $2,500, protecting litigants remains a critical public policy goal.

Additionally, although they do not presently have a formal position on the matter, the Judicial Council has surmised that increasing the number of more complex cases in small claims court may overburden the judges assigned to small claims calendars. Accordingly, in order to protect litigants and to reduce the burden on the bench officers, the author is prudently proposing to amend the bill to permit the filing of only three small claims actions exceeding a $2,500 amount in controversy per year. Accordingly, Code of Civil Procedure Section 116.231 is now proposed to read:

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), no person may file more than three six small claims actions in which the amount demanded exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), anywhere in the state in any calendar year.

(b) Except as provided in subdivision (d), if the amount demanded in any small claims action exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), the party making the demand shall file a declaration under penalty of perjury attesting to the fact that not more than three six small claims actions in which the amount of the demand exceeded two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) have been filed by that party in this state within the calendar year.

(c) The Legislature finds and declares that the pilot project conducted under the authority of Chapter 1196 of the Statutes of 1991 demonstrated the efficacy of the removal of the limitation on the number of actions public entities may file in the small claims courts on claims exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).

(d) The limitation on the number of filings exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) does not apply to filings where the claim does not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) that are filed by a city, county, city and county, school district, county office of education, community college district, local district, or any other local public entity. If any small claims action is filed by a city, county, city and county, school district, county office of education, community college district, local district, or any other local public entity pursuant to this section, and the defendant informs the court either in advance of the hearing by written notice or at the time of the hearing, that they are represented in the action by legal counsel, the action shall be transferred out of the small claims division. A city, county, city and county, school district, county office of education, community college district, local district, or any other local public entity may not file a claim within the small claims division if the amount of the demand exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Further refinement of this level, or removal of these provisions in their entirety, is highly likely once the Judicial Council is able to formally take a position on the measure. Although the judicial workload impacts may warrant the eventual removal of these provisions, the very modest increase of one additional case exceeding $2,500 per year appears to appropriately balance the impact of inflation with the ongoing need to protect litigants from sophisticated business plaintiffs abusing the small claims process.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of this bill, California Civil Liberties Advocacy writes:

Small claims courts exist to ensure that ordinary Californians have access to a forum where disputes can be resolved efficiently and affordably without the complexity and expense of formal civil litigation. Unfortunately, the rising cost of living and doing business in California has steadily eroded the practical value of the current jurisdictional limits. Many disputes involving modest but meaningful sums—such as contractor disputes, unpaid personal debts, property damage, or consumer protection claims—now exceed the existing limits, forcing individuals to choose between abandoning legitimate claims or entering a costly and time-consuming civil litigation process.

AB 1827 addresses this problem by increasing the small claims jurisdictional cap to $15,000 and allowing individuals to file up to three higher-value claims annually, ensuring that the small claims system continues to serve its core function: providing accessible justice for everyday disputes. In practical terms, this reform helps middle-class Californians and small property owners resolve conflicts without the need to retain legal counsel, which can often exceed the value of the underlying claim.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Collectors, Inc.

California Civil Liberties Advocacy

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334