Civil actions; assignment as business litigation action, requirements, delayed effective date.
The bill establishes criteria for assigning civil actions as business litigation actions. It also specifies a delayed effective date for these changes.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB369 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB369.
You're tracking SB369
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB369 — Civil actions; assignment as business litigation action, requirements, delayed effective date.
Last action — Continued from last session
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
1Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House of Delegates
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced January 13, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
LowHow often bills like it became law.
-
Introduced
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 4 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
In plain language
This bill outlines requirements for classifying civil actions as business litigation.
The bill establishes criteria for assigning civil actions as business litigation actions. It also specifies a delayed effective date for these changes.
Summary
Civil actions; assignment as business litigation action, requirements, delayed effective date.
Bill Text
We don't have the full text on file for this bill yet.
Read SB369 on the official Virginia source →Compared against the Code of Virginia as published AI-generated reading aid — verify against the official bill.
This bill amends 3 section(s) of the Code of Virginia: 8.01-267.10, 8.01-267.11, 8.01-267.12.
-
8.01-267.10
A. There is established a business and complex litigation docket, created to assist circuit courts with certain corporate, commercial, business, or transactional actions that involve specialized legal issues, complex contexts, intricate transactions, multiple parties, or other complicating factors. A business and complex litigation docket is a specialized civil court docket within the existing structure of the Commonwealth's circuit court system that enables the judiciary to manage its workload more efficiently.
Inserts “A. There is established a business and complex litigation docket, created to assist circuit courts with certain corporate, commercial, business, or transactional actions that involve specialized legal issues, complex contexts, intricate transactions, multiple parties, or other complicating factors. A business and complex litigation docket is a specialized civil court docket within the existing structure of the Commonwealth's circuit court system that enables the judiciary to manage its workload more efficiently.”.
-
8.01-267.10
B. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia may designate no more than four judges of circuit courts that are located, to the extent possible, in different regions of the Commonwealth to preside over any matter transferred to a business and complex litigation docket in accordance with § 8.01-267.12. Any judge so designated by the Chief Justice, as well as the chief judge and other judges sitting in the same judicial circuit, shall be consulted in the process of establishing such docket in such judicial circuit.
Inserts “B. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia may designate no more than four judges of circuit courts that are located, to the extent possible, in different regions of the Commonwealth to preside over any matter transferred to a business and complex litigation docket in accordance with § 8.01-267.12. Any judge so designated by the Chief Justice, as well as the chief judge and other judges sitting in the same judicial circuit, shall be consulted in the process of establishing such docket in such judicial circuit.”.
-
8.01-267.11
A. An action shall be transferred to a business and complex litigation docket only if such action (i) presents special complexity, including specialized issues or acute litigation management needs, and (ii) falls into one or more of the following categories:
Inserts “A. An action shall be transferred to a business and complex litigation docket only if such action (i) presents special complexity, including specialized issues or acute litigation management needs, and (ii) falls into one or more of the following categories:”.
-
8.01-267.11
1. Corporate governance disputes;
Inserts “1. Corporate governance disputes;”.
-
8.01-267.11
2. Derivative actions;
Inserts “2. Derivative actions;”.
-
8.01-267.11
3. Merger or acquisition litigation;
Inserts “3. Merger or acquisition litigation;”.
-
8.01-267.11
4. Intellectual property disputes;
Inserts “4. Intellectual property disputes;”.
-
8.01-267.11
5. Trade secret litigation;
Inserts “5. Trade secret litigation;”.
-
8.01-267.11
6. Antitrust litigation;
Inserts “6. Antitrust litigation;”.
-
8.01-267.11
7. Environmental litigation;
Inserts “7. Environmental litigation;”.
-
8.01-267.11
8. Franchise actions;
Inserts “8. Franchise actions;”.
-
8.01-267.11
9. Actions arising from the Uniform Commercial Code;
Inserts “9. Actions arising from the Uniform Commercial Code;”.
-
8.01-267.11
10. Any matter in which a business entity has brought an action against another business entity; or
Inserts “10. Any matter in which a business entity has brought an action against another business entity; or”.
-
8.01-267.11
11. Except as provided in subsection C, any other action that a circuit court judge determines requires specialized management.
Inserts “11. Except as provided in subsection C, any other action that a circuit court judge determines requires specialized management.”.
-
8.01-267.11
B. In addition, any action that is deemed eligible for transfer or assignment to a business and complex litigation docket pursuant to the criteria described in subsection A shall have an amount in controversy of not less than $100,000. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to make such amount in controversy of $100,000 or more the sole basis of eligibility for transfer or assignment to a business and complex litigation docket.
Inserts “B. In addition, any action that is deemed eligible for transfer or assignment to a business and complex litigation docket pursuant to the criteria described in subsection A shall have an amount in controversy of not less than $100,000. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to make such amount in controversy of $100,000 or more the sole basis of eligibility for transfer or assignment to a business and complex litigation docket.”.
-
8.01-267.11
C. Except where a request for transfer demonstrates extraordinary circumstances that warrant specialized docket management, the following categories of cases shall be ineligible for transfer:
Inserts “C. Except where a request for transfer demonstrates extraordinary circumstances that warrant specialized docket management, the following categories of cases shall be ineligible for transfer:”.
-
8.01-267.11
1. Medical malpractice;
Inserts “1. Medical malpractice;”.
-
8.01-267.11
2. Domestic relations;
Inserts “2. Domestic relations;”.
-
8.01-267.11
3. Personal injury and wrongful death;
Inserts “3. Personal injury and wrongful death;”.
-
8.01-267.11
4. Premises liability;
Inserts “4. Premises liability;”.
-
8.01-267.11
5. Negligence;
Inserts “5. Negligence;”.
-
8.01-267.11
6. Virginia Freedom of Information Act (§ 2.2-3700 et seq.) actions;
Inserts “6. Virginia Freedom of Information Act (§ 2.2-3700 et seq.) actions;”.
-
8.01-267.11
7. Claims brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.;
Inserts “7. Claims brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.;”.
-
8.01-267.11
8. Legal malpractice;
Inserts “8. Legal malpractice;”.
-
8.01-267.11
9. Defamation;
Inserts “9. Defamation;”.
-
8.01-267.11
10. Real property actions;
Inserts “10. Real property actions;”.
-
8.01-267.11
11. Virginia Consumer Protection Act (§ 59.1-196 et seq.) claims; or
Inserts “11. Virginia Consumer Protection Act (§ 59.1-196 et seq.) claims; or”.
-
8.01-267.11
12. Contempt of court.
Inserts “12. Contempt of court.”.
-
8.01-267.12
A. In any action that meets the eligibility criteria described in § 8.01-267.11, counsel for any party or the circuit court judge initially assigned to the matter on the regular docket may submit a docket transfer request form to the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia for referral to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice shall review such transfer request and may order that the matter be transferred to the specialized docket Such docket transfer form shall describe the reason for such request and statements from any counsel of any party or the circuit court judge initially assigned who did not initially request such transfer regarding why such transfer may or may not be necessary or beneficial.
Inserts “A. In any action that meets the eligibility criteria described in § 8.01-267.11, counsel for any party or the circuit court judge initially assigned to the matter on the regular docket may submit a docket transfer request form to the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia for referral to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice shall review such transfer request and may order that the matter be transferred to the specialized docket Such docket transfer form shall describe the reason for such request and statements from any counsel of any party or the circuit court judge initially assigned who did not initially request such transfer regarding why such transfer may or may not be necessary or beneficial.”.
-
8.01-267.12
B. The Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia, in collaboration with the Chief Justice and the Specialty Docket Advisory Committee studying business and complex litigation dockets, shall establish procedures and rules, as necessary, for the transfer of such actions, including criteria for when a request to transfer an eligible case may be granted or denied.
Inserts “B. The Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia, in collaboration with the Chief Justice and the Specialty Docket Advisory Committee studying business and complex litigation dockets, shall establish procedures and rules, as necessary, for the transfer of such actions, including criteria for when a request to transfer an eligible case may be granted or denied.”.
Action History
-
H Continued to next session in Courts of Justice (Voice Vote)
-
H Placed on Courts of Justice Agenda
-
H Subcommittee recommends continuing to (Voice Vote)
-
H Placed on Courts of Justice Agenda
-
H Assigned HCJ sub: Civil
-
H Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
-
H Read first time
-
H Placed on Calendar
-
S Read third time and passed Senate (36-Y 3-N 0-A)
-
S Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute (Voice Vote)
-
S Committee substitute agreed to (Voice Vote)
-
S Read second time
-
S Passed by for the day Block Vote (Voice Vote)
-
S Constitutional reading dispensed Block Vote (on 1st reading) (40-Y 0-N 0-A)
-
S Rules suspended
-
S Reported from Finance and Appropriations (12-Y 3-N)
-
S Fiscal Impact Statement from Department of Planning and Budget (SB369)
-
S Committee substitute printed 26106454D-S1
-
S Rereferred to Finance and Appropriations
-
S Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute and rereferred to Finance and Appropriations (10-Y 1-N 2-A)
-
S Senate committee offered
-
S Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
-
S Prefiled and ordered printed; Offered 01-14-2026 26101724D
Sponsors
- Jennifer D. Carroll Foy · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 147 not signed on · 4 voted No
Sponsors (1)
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (147)
147 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 147 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 10 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Total | 10 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 67% | 7% | 0% | 27% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Barbara A. Favola | — | Yea |
| Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr. | — | Yea |
| Jennifer B. Boysko | — | Yea |
| Jennifer D. Carroll Foy | — | Yea |
| Lamont Bagby | — | Yea |
| Lashrecse D. Aird | — | Yea |
| Mark D. Obenshain | — | Yea |
| Mark J. Peake | — | Yea |
| R. Creigh Deeds | — | Nay |
| Richard H. Stuart | — | Not Voting |
| Russet Perry | — | Not Voting |
| Ryan T. McDougle | — | Yea |
| Saddam Azlan Salim | — | Yea |
| Scott A. Surovell | — | Not Voting |
| William M. Stanley, Jr. | — | Not Voting |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 36 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 36 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 90% | 8% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Aaron R. Rouse | — | Yea |
| Adam P. Ebbin | — | Yea |
| Angelia Williams Graves | — | Yea |
| Barbara A. Favola | — | Yea |
| Bill DeSteph | — | Yea |
| Bryce E. Reeves | — | Yea |
| Christie New Craig | — | Yea |
| Christopher T. Head | — | Yea |
| Danica A. Roem | — | Yea |
| David R. Suetterlein | — | Yea |
| David W. Marsden | — | Yea |
| Emily M. Jordan | — | Yea |
| Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr. | — | Yea |
| J.D. "Danny" Diggs | — | Yea |
| Jennifer B. Boysko | — | Not Voting |
| Jennifer D. Carroll Foy | — | Yea |
| Jeremy S. McPike | — | Yea |
| Kannan Srinivasan | — | Yea |
| L. Louise Lucas | — | Yea |
| Lamont Bagby | — | Yea |
| Lashrecse D. Aird | — | Yea |
| Luther Cifers, III | — | Yea |
| Mamie E. Locke | — | Yea |
| Mark D. Obenshain | — | Yea |
| Mark J. Peake | — | Yea |
| Michael J. Jones | — | Yea |
| R. Creigh Deeds | — | Nay |
| Richard H. Stuart | — | Yea |
| Russet Perry | — | Nay |
| Ryan T. McDougle | — | Yea |
| Saddam Azlan Salim | — | Yea |
| Schuyler T. VanValkenburg | — | Yea |
| Scott A. Surovell | — | Nay |
| Stella G. Pekarsky | — | Yea |
| T. Travis Hackworth | — | Yea |
| Tammy Brankley Mulchi | — | Yea |
| Tara A. Durant | — | Yea |
| Timmy French | — | Yea |
| Todd E. Pillion | — | Yea |
| William M. Stanley, Jr. | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Aaron R. Rouse | — | Yea |
| Adam P. Ebbin | — | Yea |
| Angelia Williams Graves | — | Yea |
| Barbara A. Favola | — | Yea |
| Bill DeSteph | — | Yea |
| Bryce E. Reeves | — | Yea |
| Christie New Craig | — | Yea |
| Christopher T. Head | — | Yea |
| Danica A. Roem | — | Yea |
| David R. Suetterlein | — | Yea |
| David W. Marsden | — | Yea |
| Emily M. Jordan | — | Yea |
| Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr. | — | Yea |
| J.D. "Danny" Diggs | — | Yea |
| Jennifer B. Boysko | — | Yea |
| Jennifer D. Carroll Foy | — | Yea |
| Jeremy S. McPike | — | Yea |
| Kannan Srinivasan | — | Yea |
| L. Louise Lucas | — | Yea |
| Lamont Bagby | — | Yea |
| Lashrecse D. Aird | — | Yea |
| Luther Cifers, III | — | Yea |
| Mamie E. Locke | — | Yea |
| Mark D. Obenshain | — | Yea |
| Mark J. Peake | — | Yea |
| Michael J. Jones | — | Yea |
| R. Creigh Deeds | — | Yea |
| Richard H. Stuart | — | Yea |
| Russet Perry | — | Yea |
| Ryan T. McDougle | — | Yea |
| Saddam Azlan Salim | — | Yea |
| Schuyler T. VanValkenburg | — | Yea |
| Scott A. Surovell | — | Yea |
| Stella G. Pekarsky | — | Yea |
| T. Travis Hackworth | — | Yea |
| Tammy Brankley Mulchi | — | Yea |
| Tara A. Durant | — | Yea |
| Timmy French | — | Yea |
| Todd E. Pillion | — | Yea |
| William M. Stanley, Jr. | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 12 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 12 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 80% | 20% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Aaron R. Rouse | — | Yea |
| Adam P. Ebbin | — | Yea |
| Barbara A. Favola | — | Yea |
| Bryce E. Reeves | — | Yea |
| David W. Marsden | — | Yea |
| Jennifer B. Boysko | — | Yea |
| Jeremy S. McPike | — | Yea |
| L. Louise Lucas | — | Yea |
| Mamie E. Locke | — | Yea |
| Mark D. Obenshain | — | Yea |
| R. Creigh Deeds | — | Nay |
| Richard H. Stuart | — | Yea |
| Ryan T. McDougle | — | Yea |
| Scott A. Surovell | — | Nay |
| Todd E. Pillion | — | Nay |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB369 do?
- Civil actions; assignment as business litigation action, requirements, delayed effective date.
- Who sponsors SB369?
- SB369 is sponsored by Jennifer D. Carroll Foy.
- What is the current status of SB369?
- This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced January 13, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
- Where can I track SB369?
- Track SB369 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB369
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB369
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →