
Assembly Bill 1950 adds Section 1775.16 to the California Code of Civil Procedure, creating an exception to the existing limit on court-ordered mediation. That limit, found in Section 1775.5, bars a court from ordering a case into mediation where the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000, a ceiling that rises to $75,000 on January 1, 2027. Most employment cases, which typically include claims for emotional distress damages, statutory penalties, and attorney fees, exceed either figure. Section 1775.16 removes that ceiling for judges of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, who may now order civil cases into mediation regardless of the amount in controversy. The new section takes effect January 1, 2027, and operates as a pilot program through January 1, 2032, unless extended by the Legislature. For employers, this brings employment cases pending in Los Angeles within the reach of court-ordered mediation.
Once the court issues an order implementing the pilot program, any case ordered into the program is entitled to up to three hours of mediation at no cost through a court-sanctioned program. Parties may appear remotely. Court-ordered mediation cannot delay the trial date or serve as grounds for a continuance. The court is required to report the results of the program on or before January 31, 2028, and annually thereafter.
Every other requirement of Section 1775.5 that becomes effective on January 1, 2027, will still apply. A case may be ordered into mediation only after it has been set for trial. At least one party must have notified the court of its interest in mediation, and there can be no ongoing discovery disputes affecting the case. The parties may stipulate to a mediator of their choosing. If they cannot agree within 15 days, the court selects one. Mediation must conclude no later than 120 days before trial.
Another important consequence of AB 1950 is that it entitles the parties to free mediation. In contrast, private mediation fees in employment cases are expensive and the fees are typically split between the parties. A case ordered into the Los Angeles program receives up to three hours of mediation at no cost to either side, and remote appearance reduces the time and expense of attendance. Because the request of a single party is sufficient, an employer may seek a mediation order on its own and may also be ordered to participate at the plaintiff's request. This reality may be attractive for small employers or businesses otherwise on a tight litigation budget.
Court-ordered mediation also carries attendance obligations under the California Rules of Court. A business party must send a representative with authority to resolve the dispute. Any insurer that may cover the claim, including an employment practices liability carrier, must also send a representative with settlement authority.
In sum, AB 1950 establishes section 1775.16 to expand the Los Angeles court's no-cost mediation authority from its smallest cases to cases of any value, including all employment matters.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters. Articles may be reprinted with permission and acknowledgment. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. All rights reserved.
- Partner
Jared W. Slater is a Partner in ECJ's Litigation and Employment Departments.
Jared's practice focuses on defending labor and employment actions, including claims for wage and hour violations, harassment, and discrimination both ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- AB 1950 Gives Los Angeles Judges New Power to Order Civil Cases into Mediation | By: Jared W. Slater
- Law Restricting Employer Use of “Stay or Pay” Contracts Postponed and Modified | By Kelly O. Scott
- One Motion, One Chance: A Second Motion to Compel Arbitration May Be Deemed a “Renewed Motion” | By: Jared W. Slater
- Receivers have quasi-judicial immunity, but only for discretionary acts and decisions | By: Peter A. Davidson
- Ninth Circuit Permits EFAA Election After Arbitration Has Commenced | By: Jared W. Slater
- An Arbitration Clause Specific to an Employment Agreement Might Not Apply to Common Employment Claims | By Jared W. Slater
- EFAA Uncertainty Does Not Excuse a Delayed Motion to Compel Arbitration | By: Jared W. Slater
- A Reminder: the 2026 IRS Mileage Rates Have Increased | By: Joanne Warriner
- MAC Attack: Why Material Adverse Change Clauses Rarely Save a Deal | By: Jeffrey R. Glassman
- Signed the Same Day, Read Together: The Mutuality Problem Hiding in Onboarding Documents | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2026
- September 2026
- August 2026
- July 2026
- June 2026
- May 2026
- April 2026
- March 2026
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
