New 2026 Court Rules Revamp California Civil Litigation

California operates the nation’s largest state court system, spanning 65 courts and employing approximately 1,800 judges. Because of its size, when the state adopts new court rules, litigators must immediately understand the impact on clients and cases. These rules often change court procedures, modify evidentiary standards, or update administrative policies in both ongoing and future litigation. We highlight a few rules that directly impact civil litigation and continue to track regional and local changes.

Rule 10.430 – Generative Artificial Intelligence

By December 15, 2025, any California court that does not entirely prohibit the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by court staff or judicial officers must adopt a written use policy, under Rule 10.430, known as Generative Artificial Intelligence Use Policies of the Judicial Council of California. Rule 10.430 establishes the first statewide framework in the nation governing the use of Generative AI, therefore, it is expected that the rest of the country will be watching with an interest in ethics and accountability standards.

The rule applies to the superior courts, the appellate courts, and the California Supreme Court. Currently, no California courts have implemented a complete ban on the use of AI; however, while the Courts of Appeal do not prohibit the use of AI, they do mandate specific policies and have sanctioned lawyers who misused generative AI in their filings.

The specific guidelines in the new rule focus on accuracy, confidentiality, and ethical responsibility. Courts adopting a generative AI use policy under this rule may make their policy more restrictive than the rule requires and may include provisions not covered by the rule.

The six primary requirements of this policy are for:

• Protecting Confidentiality.  Prohibit the entry of confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system. Including driver’s license numbers; dates of birth; Social Security numbers; criminal information, addresses and phone numbers of parties, victims, witnesses, and court personnel; medical or psychiatric information; financial information; account numbers; and any other content sealed by court order or deemed confidential by court rule or statute.
• Prohibit Discrimination. Prohibit the use of generative AI to unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on age, ancestry, color, ethnicity, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and any other classification protected by federal or state law.
• Verify Accuracy. Require court staff and judicial officers who create or use generative AI material to take reasonable steps to verify that the material is accurate.
• Remove Bias. To take reasonable steps to verify that the material is accurate, and to take reasonable steps to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used.
• Disclosure. Require disclosure of the use of or reliance on generative AI if the final version of a written, visual, or audio work provided to the public consists entirely of generative AI outputs. Disclosure must be made through a clear and understandable label, watermark, or statement.
• Compliance with Ethics. Require compliance with all applicable laws, court policies, and ethical and professional conduct rules, codes, and policies when using generative AI.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 231.7 – Expansion to Peremptory Challenges in Civil Court

Beginning on January 1, 2026, California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 will expand its beyond criminal jury trials and also govern civil jury trials. The rule, which was initially enacted in 2020 for criminal jury trials beginning on/after January 1, 2022, aims to eliminate implicit, institutional, and unconscious bias in jury selection by restricting the use of peremptory challenges that appear to be based on race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation.

This rule’s expansion into civil cases moves the process away from the Batson/Wheeler standard, which has required proof of purposeful discrimination since 1986. This shift in jury selection demands attorneys adjust their trial strategy, including how they conduct voir dire and articulate reasons for peremptory strikes. The new rule shifts the burden of proof, and courts must create a record of the objection, ruling, and reasoning to facilitate appellate review.

Service of Process  – New Rules under AB 747

Beginning January 1, 2027, California will implement significant changes to its service-of-process rules under AB 747—the Service of Process Accountability, Reform, and Equity (SPARE) Act. Governor Gavin Newsom signed this legislation in October 2025, marking the first major statewide reform in 50 years. The SPARE Act updates California’s legal notice system to strengthen due process protections and eliminate the long-standing issue known as “sewer service.”

Under existing law:

1. Service of a summons in a civil action that complies with specified procedures is not invalid solely because the person serving it violated registration requirements for process servers.
2. If a summons and complaint cannot, with reasonable diligence, be personally delivered, they may be served by leaving a copy at the person’s dwelling, usual place of abode, business, or mailing address, in the presence of someone at least 18 years old, and then mailing a copy as specified.
3. In unlawful detainer actions, a summons may be served by posting if the court determines the party cannot, with reasonable diligence, be served by any authorized method other than publication, and certain conditions are met.
4. Proof of service must include specific information in the documentation.

Examples of SPARE’s new requirements include:

• Stricter diligence: Personal service must be attempted at least three times on different days and at different times, with at least one attempt at the defendant’s residence.
• Enhanced documentation: Proof of service must include time- and date-stamped photographs, GPS location data, and the process server’s registration details for every attempt.
• Public registry: Counties must maintain and publish a registry of all registered process servers for public access.

In addition to updating the requirements for service, AB 747 confirms that individuals can challenge default judgments obtained through improper service at any time—adopting the California Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in California Capital Insurance Co. v. Hoehn—and clarifies the process for doing so.

Conclusion

As California continues to shape the direction of these evolving issues, ongoing movement is expected in how courts and regulatory bodies define responsibilities, expectations, and guardrails around new tools and practices. These shifts will influence not only how matters are managed, but also how risk is assessed and mitigated. We will continue to actively monitor developments as they arise, ensuring up-to-date insight and guidance on what these changes mean for business and legal strategy.