§ 86.Specific cases and proceedings that are limited civil cases
Title 1. Organization and Jurisdiction · Chapter 5.1. Limited Civil Cases · Article 1. Jurisdiction in Limited Civil Cases · Last amended 2024 · Last verified July 28, 2026
Full Text of § 86
Plain-English Summary
Section 85 sets the general rule for a limited civil case. Section 86 fills in the specifics, listing the exact kinds of lawsuits and proceedings that qualify — each one paired with its own $35,000 ceiling.
The list covers common contract and property disputes: actions to recover money or enforce an obligation, partnership dissolutions where the partnership’s total assets don’t exceed $35,000, interpleader actions, suits to cancel or rescind a contract tied to that amount, unlawful detainer proceedings where the damages claimed stay at or under $35,000, and actions to foreclose liens on personal property, mechanics’ liens, or common interest development assessment liens within the same limit. It also covers narrower situations: certain declaratory relief claims (an indemnity cross-complaint, or a trial after nonbinding attorney-client fee arbitration), ancillary relief like a temporary restraining order or a receiver appointment within an otherwise limited civil case, and petitions tied to arbitration awards that themselves fall within these dollar limits.
Subdivision (b) adds three equity-based cases to the list: disputes over title to personal property worth $35,000 or less, equity raised as a defense in a case that’s otherwise limited, and a motion to vacate a limited civil case judgment obtained through extrinsic fraud, mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
Official Comment
The following official comments are published by the California Law Revision Commission (and, for a few older sections, its predecessor Code Commissioners) alongside the statute itself — not commentary from this site.
1982 Law Revision Commission Comment. Section 86 is amended to conform to Title 9 (commencing with Section 680.010) of Part 2 (Enforcement of Judgments Law).
1984 Law Revision Commission Comment. Subdivision (a)(6) of Section 86 is amended to make clear that municipal and justice courts have jurisdiction over actions to enforce and foreclose condominium assessment liens to the same extent as actions to enforce and foreclose mechanics’ and laborers’ liens.
1998 Law Revision Commission Comment. Section 86 is amended to accommodate unification of the municipal and superior courts in a county. Cal. Const. art. VI, § 5(e). The matters listed in subdivisions (a) and (b) are not limited civil cases if the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000. See Section 85. Formerly, each county had one or more municipal courts and a superior court, and the matters listed in Section 86(a)–(b) were within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court, unless the amount in controversy exceeded $25,000. A limited civil case is equivalent to a matter within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court under former law, so subdivisions (a) and (b) as amended continue the effect of former law. See Section 85 (limited civil cases) & Comment. Former subdivision (a)(11) is continued in Penal Code Section 1214, with modifications to accommodate trial court unification. Former subdivision (c) is continued without substantive change in Section 580 (relief awardable in civil causes). Former subdivision (d) is deleted as obsolete.
2001 Law Revision Commission Comment. Subdivision (a)(6) of Section 86 is amended to clarify the jurisdictional classification of a petition to release a mechanic’s lien. This is declaratory of existing law. See Section 85 (limited civil cases) & Comment. See also Section 88 (unlimited civil case). Subdivision (a)(6) is also amended to reflect elimination of the municipal courts as a result of unification with the superior courts pursuant to Article VI, Section 5(e), of the California Constitution. For reclassification of an action in a unified superior court, see Sections 403.010–403.090. Subdivision (a)(8) is amended to delete the language on circumstances for appointment of a receiver in a limited civil case, and insert a cross–reference to Section 564, which now governs appointment of receivers in both limited and unlimited civil cases. The language deleted from the first clause of subdivision (a)(8) is continued in Section 564(b)(8), but broadened to apply to all cases. See Section 564 Comment. The language deleted from the second clause of subdivision (a)(8) is not continued, because it is redundant with Section 564(b)(3) and (b)(4).
2010 Law Revision Commission Comment. Paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 86 is amended to correct a cross-reference and eliminate obsolete terminology. The section is also amended to make stylistic revisions.
2012 Law Revision Commission Comment. Section 86 is amended to correct a cross-reference to former Civil Code Section 1351(c).
2013 Law Revision Commission Comment. Paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 86 is amended to add a cross-reference to Civil Code Section 6534, reflecting the enactment of the Commercial and Industrial Common Interest Development Act ( Civ. Code §§ 6500- 6876). 42 Cal. L. Revision Comm’n Reports 1 (2012).
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an unlawful detainer (eviction) case count as a limited civil case?
Yes. Under § 86, an unlawful detainer proceeding is a limited civil case as long as the total damages claimed are $35,000 or less.
Can a partnership dissolution be filed as a limited civil case?
Yes, if the partnership’s total assets don’t exceed $35,000. Section 86 places that kind of case on the limited civil case track.
What if a lien foreclosure involves more than $35,000?
Section 86 caps lien-related actions — including mechanics’ liens and common interest development assessment liens — at $35,000; above that figure, or where competing liens push the total higher, the case isn’t a limited civil case.
Can a party ask a limited civil case court to vacate a judgment for fraud?
Yes. Section 86(b)(3) allows a motion to vacate a limited civil case judgment obtained through extrinsic fraud, mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
Amendment History
Added Stats 1976 ch 1288 § 5. Amended Stats 1978 ch 146 § 1, operative July 1, 1979; Stats 1979 ch 958 § 1; Stats 1981 ch 714 § 57; Stats 1982 ch 466 § 14 (ch 497 prevails), ch 497 § 25, operative July 1, 1983; Stats 1984 ch 538 § 1, ch 1719 § 1.1; Stats 1985 ch 879 § 1, ch 1383 § 1; Stats 1986 ch 88 § 1, effective May 13, 1986, ch 953 § 1; Stats 1987 ch 104 § 1; Stats 1988 ch 463 § 1; Stats 1993 ch 1261 § 1 (SB 401), ch 1262 § 4.5 (AB 1272); Stats 1997 ch 527 § 2 (SB 150); Stats 1998 ch 931 § 29 (SB 2139), effective September 28, 1998; Stats 2001 ch 44 § 1 (SB 562); Stats 2012 ch 181 § 42 (AB 806), effective January 1, 2013, operative January 1, 2014; Stats 2013 ch 605 § 22 (SB 752), effective January 1, 2014; Stats 2023 ch 861 § 3 (SB 71), effective January 1, 2024.