Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 California opinions name it 2 courts 1894–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barefield v. Washington Mutual Bankgreen1 sentence2024Based on that date of service, and taking into account the 75-day required notice and the additional two days for electronic service, the motion could have been heard, at the earliest, on August 24, 2022.6 (See Barefield v. Washington Mutual Bank (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 299, 303 [noting two-day extension should be added after the 75-day notice period is calculated].) And even if the notice period is calculated starting on June 9, 2022, the date the court specially set the motion for hearing, the motion still could have been heard as early as August 26, 2022. | 1 | 1 |
Knapp v. Dohertygreen2 sentences2008(See Tilley v. CZ Master Assn. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 464, 469, 490-491 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ]; Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 711-712 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 609 ]; Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 100-101 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ]; Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ] (Urshan).) The summary judgment statute provides that “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. 2008(See Tilley v. CZ Master Assn. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 464, 469, 490-491 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ]; Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 711-712 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 609 ]; Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 100-101 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ]; Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ] (Urshan).) The summary judgment statute provides that “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Urshan v. Musicians' Credit Uniongreen2 sentences2008(See Tilley v. CZ Master Assn. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 464, 469, 490-491 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ]; Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 711-712 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 609 ]; Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 100-101 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ]; Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ] (Urshan).) The summary judgment statute provides that “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. 2008(See Tilley v. CZ Master Assn. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 464, 469, 490-491 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ]; Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 711-712 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 609 ]; Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 100-101 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ]; Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ] (Urshan).) The summary judgment statute provides that “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Lerma v. County of Orangegreen2 sentences2008(See Tilley v. CZ Master Assn. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 464, 469, 490-491 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ]; Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 711-712 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 609 ]; Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 100-101 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ]; Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ] (Urshan).) The summary judgment statute provides that “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. 2008(See Tilley v. CZ Master Assn. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 464, 469, 490-491 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ]; Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 711-712 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 609 ]; Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 100-101 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ]; Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ] (Urshan).) The summary judgment statute provides that “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Tilley v. CZ MASTER ASS'Ngreen2 sentences2008(See Tilley v. CZ Master Assn. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 464, 469, 490-491 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ]; Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 711-712 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 609 ]; Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 100-101 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ]; Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ] (Urshan).) The summary judgment statute provides that “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. 2008(See Tilley v. CZ Master Assn. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 464, 469, 490-491 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 ]; Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 711-712 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 609 ]; Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 100-101 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ]; Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ] (Urshan).) The summary judgment statute provides that “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. | 1 | 1 |
St. Mary Medical Center v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2002Mary Medical Center v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1531, 1538 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 182 ].) Seely, Diehl, and S & R filed their motion for summary judgment/ adjudication on May 26, 1999, and requested a hearing date of June 23. 2002Mary Medical Center v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1531, 1538 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 182 ].) Seely, Diehl, and S & R filed their motion for summary judgment/ adjudication on May 26, 1999, and requested a hearing date of June 23. | 1 | 1 |
Farrar v. McCormickgreen1 sentence2002The court, or the judge thereof, may prescribe a shorter time.’ ” (Farrar, supra, 25 Cal.App.3d at p. 705, italics omitted.) Section 1005 has since been expanded and amended (see fin. 10, ante) to provide a longer notice period (21 days) for 12 specific types of motions and for “any other proceeding under this code in which notice is required and no other time or method is prescribed by law or by court or judge.” The same provision still appears in subdivision (b) of the statute permitting the court to prescribe a shorter time, but Eliceche maintains this provision now applies only to the type | 1 | 1 |
Schaff v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1988The petition of real parties in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 28, 1988. 1 All subsequent statutory references are to Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. 2 California Rules of Court, rule 317(a), requires opposing papers to be served and filed at least five court days before the time appointed for the hearing. 3 Even assuming that under the new law Blue Ridge waived its objections, relief may have been appropriate pursuant to the second sentence of section 2031, subdivision (k), by motion to the court. 4 Schaff v. Superior Court (1983) 146 Cal.Ap 1988The petition of real parties in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 28, 1988. 1 All subsequent statutory references are to Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. 2 California Rules of Court, rule 317(a), requires opposing papers to be served and filed at least five court days before the time appointed for the hearing. 3 Even assuming that under the new law Blue Ridge waived its objections, relief may have been appropriate pursuant to the second sentence of section 2031, subdivision (k), by motion to the court. 4 Schaff v. Superior Court (1983) 146 Cal.Ap | 1 | 1 |
Mann v. Cracchiologreen2 sentences1985(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 317 (a).) 2 The Orange County Superior Court rule is similar. 3 However, since the Judicial Council may only adopt rules not inconsistent with law, and since local rules have the force of law only when *548 there is no legislative direction to the contrary (Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 29 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 694 P.2d 1134 ]), we must determine whether California Rules of Court, rule 317 (a) and Orange County Superior Court Law and Motion Rules, rule 520, subdivision (C)(2) are consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. 1985(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 317 (a).) 2 The Orange County Superior Court rule is similar. 3 However, since the Judicial Council may only adopt rules not inconsistent with law, and since local rules have the force of law only when *548 there is no legislative direction to the contrary (Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 29 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 694 P.2d 1134 ]), we must determine whether California Rules of Court, rule 317 (a) and Orange County Superior Court Law and Motion Rules, rule 520, subdivision (C)(2) are consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bellecigreen2 sentences1985“It is settled that ‘ “We are required to give effect to statutes ‘according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them.’ [Citations.]” ’ ” (People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 884 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 598 P.2d 473 ].) In enacting section 664.6, had the Legislature intended “parties” to have a meaning other than this commonly understood meaning, it could and would have provided so in the statute. 1985“It is settled that ‘ “We are required to give effect to statutes ‘according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them.’ [Citations.]” ’ ” (People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 884 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 598 P.2d 473 ].) In enacting section 664.6, had the Legislature intended “parties” to have a meaning other than this commonly understood meaning, it could and would have provided so in the statute. | 1 | 1 |
DeMiglio v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1983(See DeMiglio v. Superior Court (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 973, 974 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 787 ].) 5 But, we need not determine whether the minimum time requirement of five days set forth in section 1005 is sufficient to impose sanctions under section 128.5 *648 because in the instant appeal Kroah was given a second opportunity to contest the sanctions on his motion to reconsider. 1983(See DeMiglio v. Superior Court (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 973, 974 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 787 ].) 5 But, we need not determine whether the minimum time requirement of five days set forth in section 1005 is sufficient to impose sanctions under section 128.5 *648 because in the instant appeal Kroah was given a second opportunity to contest the sanctions on his motion to reconsider. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Woods
green
2 sentences2024Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a)(2) requires that “[n]otice of the [summary judgment] motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 7 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.” Appellant emphasizes that “[t]he importance of providing the minimum statutory notice of a summary judgment hearing cannot be overemphasized.” (Robinson v. Woods, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1262 .) “‘[T]rial courts do not have authority to shorten the minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings.’” (Ibid.) We find that appellant forfeited this 2023Thus, by re-serving the original motion papers along with notice the hearing had been continued to November 4, plaintiff failed to comply with section 437c’s requirement that “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served . . . at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.” (§ 437c, subd. (a)(2).) “The purpose of the 75-day service requirement is to allow the parties time to prepare their opposition . . . and to prepare for the hearing.” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1208 .) “The importance of providing the minimum statutory notice of a summary judgmen | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Lackner v. North
green
1 sentence2023Thus, by re-serving the original motion papers along with notice the hearing had been continued to November 4, plaintiff failed to comply with section 437c’s requirement that “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served . . . at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.” (§ 437c, subd. (a)(2).) “The purpose of the 75-day service requirement is to allow the parties time to prepare their opposition . . . and to prepare for the hearing.” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1208 .) “The importance of providing the minimum statutory notice of a summary judgmen | 1 | 2023–2023 |
TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2021The court noted that section 437c “refer[s] in several places to the requirement of a ‘hearing’ or to a requirement that the motion be ‘heard,’ ” and it concluded that, read in context, “many of these references are to . . . an ‘oral’ proceeding.” (Id. at p. 1208.) The court explained: “[S]ection 437c, subdivision (a) provides ‘[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.’ (Italics added.) Section 437c, subdivision (b) likewise states that opposition and reply papers must be filed within | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Green v. Bristol-Myers Co.
green
1 sentence2020Proc., § 437c, subds. (a)(2), (3).) “[T]he 30-day time limit on summary judgment hearings should be calculated based on the trial date in existence when the motion is noticed regardless of whether that date is the original trial date or not.” (Green v. Bristol Myers Co (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 604, 609 .) The applicable trial date here is October 23, 2020. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Vergara v. State of California
green
1 sentence2020(See Boyer v. County of Ventura (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 49, 53 ; Vergara v. State of California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 619, 642 .) Section 437c, subdivision (a)(2), provides, “Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.” Section 12c, subdivision (a), provides, “Where any law requires an act to be performed no later than a specified number of days before a hearing date, the last day to perform that act shall be determined by counting backward from the hearing date, excluding the day of the he | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020(Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178-180 .) DISCUSSION A party may move for summary judgment by serving the motion “at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing,” and the “motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.” (Code Civ. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Boyer v. Ventura Cnty.
green
1 sentence2020(See Boyer v. County of Ventura (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 49, 53 ; Vergara v. State of California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 619, 642 .) Section 437c, subdivision (a)(2), provides, “Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.” Section 12c, subdivision (a), provides, “Where any law requires an act to be performed no later than a specified number of days before a hearing date, the last day to perform that act shall be determined by counting backward from the hearing date, excluding the day of the he | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Lewis v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2004(See Lewis v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1250 .) Although other references in the statute appear to refer to a “hearing” in the broader sense of a judicial consideration of the matter (see, e.g., § 437c, subds. (b), (d)), these additional references do not undermine the conclusion that the Legislature intended and expected that an oral hearing would be scheduled at which time the parties would have the right to appear and argue their case for or against summary judgment. *1209 This conclusion is supported by the statutes governing motions generally. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
MacK v. Golino
green
1 sentence2000In approving the continuance of the sale because of defective notice, the court determined that the notice "was published 17 days before the date of sale." ( Mack v. Golino, supra, at p. 734 , 213 P.2d 760 .) While dictum, this is indication that the 20th day would have been July 10, and that sale would have been properly noticed for—and conducted on—the 20th day. [24] See footnote 16, ante, for a discussion of subsequent amendments to section 2924g, subdivision (d). [25] Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part: "Notice of the motion and supporting pap | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Gallo v. Getz
green
2 sentences1993For example, under the statutory language of section 437c, ‘Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense thereto’ and ‘Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 28 days before the time appointed for hearing.’ Countless other examples of use of the terms ‘party’ or ‘parties’ appear in our statutes, and it is understood universally that the terms are intended to include the party litigant personally or through his attorney of record. ‘It 1993For example, under the statutory language of section 437c, ‘Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense thereto’ and ‘Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 28 days before the time appointed for hearing.’ Countless other examples of use of the terms ‘party’ or ‘parties’ appear in our statutes, and it is understood universally that the terms are intended to include the party litigant personally or through his attorney of record. ‘It | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Bauguess v. Paine
green
2 sentences1985Section 1005 provides: ‘All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and served on each party at least five days before the time appointed for the hearing.’ ” (At p. 647.) Its discussion of the notice requirement continued in a footnote: “[I]t would appear that for purposes of requesting sanctions under section 128.5 the five-day response time of section 1005 would be jurisdictional to the due process requirements discussed in Bauguess [v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626 ( 150 Cal.Rptr. 461 , 586 P.2d 942 )]. 1985Section 1005 provides: ‘All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and served on each party at least five days before the time appointed for the hearing.’ ” (At p. 647.) Its discussion of the notice requirement continued in a footnote: “[I]t would appear that for purposes of requesting sanctions under section 128.5 the five-day response time of section 1005 would be jurisdictional to the due process requirements discussed in Bauguess [v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626 ( 150 Cal.Rptr. 461 , 586 P.2d 942 )]. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
In re Will of Warfield
neutral
1 sentence1907This court has held in Estate of Warfield, 22 Cal. 51 , [ 83 Am. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Abila v. Padilla
neutral
1 sentence1894The code evidently anticipates the necessity for the exercise of such power, for section 1306 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “At the time appointed for the hearing, or the time to which the hearing may have been postponed, the court, unless the parties appear, must require proof that the notice has been given.” The clause quoted provides for cases in which a postponement has been had, and that proof of service is not necessary as to parties who appear, and in this latter respect is in line with the doctrine enunciated in Abila v. Padilla, 14 Cal. 103 , where it was held that as t | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.