What is a Joinder to Motion?

In Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm, 135 Cal.App.4th 654 (2006), the court noted that “when a party merely joins in a motion for summary judgment without presenting its own evidence, the party fails to establish the necessary factual foundation to support the motion”…and that “joining in an argument is different from joining in a motion.” (Id. at 660-661).

The CCP further stresses that “section 1013, which extends the time within which a right may be exercised or an act may be done, does not apply to a notice of motion, papers opposing a motion, or reply papers governed by this section.” (Id.)

The court, as in most issues, can exercise discretion and order the motion or any papers to be served in a shorter time. (Id.) In Frazee v. Seely, 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 636-637 (2002), the court held that a joinder to motion for summary judgment was denied because of an untimely filing. (Id.) Yet, a court can exercise its discretion if the opposing party does not file an opposition to the joinder motion to consider the motion merits even if it is untimely.

A joinder must be timely in order for the court to consider the motion on the merits. The joinder is timely “if it is served and filed within the time for noticing the particular motion at issue.” (Persson v. Smart Inventions, Inc., 125 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1176-1177 (2006).)

The California Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) lays out the guidelines regarding timeliness on a variety of motions, including joinder to motion. The CCP holds that “unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” (CCP § 1005(b).) Further, “the moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court.” (Id.)

However, “if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California, 10 calendar days if either the place of mailing or the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 calendar days if either the place of mailing or the place of address is outside the United States, and if the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by two calendar days.” (Id.) Finally, “all papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days, and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing.” (Id.)

Useful Rulings on Joinder to Motion

Recent Rulings on Joinder to Motion

RAMONA TIZABI VS FOUAD MELAMED, ET AL.

Joinder to Motion for Summary Adjudication Defendant Roxbury Manor has filed a joinder to plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on June 18, 2020. Roxbury Manor’s joinder is rejected as untimely because it was not served at least 75 days before the hearing on the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a); see also Lerma v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

GETZ V. SERRANO EL DORADO OWNERS’ ASSOC.

(See Declaration of Andrea Howard in Support of Joinder to Motion, paragraph 1.) Obviously the Parker letter is not a confidential communication between the HOA and its counsel. None of the emails were from counsel to the recipients and counsel is only cc’d on the email chain.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

CORDAS VS. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS

Defendant John Paul Mitchell Systems’ Joinder to Motion is granted. Plaintiff must arbitrate his individual claims against defendants. Plaintiff’s class claims are stricken and dismissed without prejudice. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) 138 Sup. Ct. 1612; Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. (2010) 559 U.S. 662, 686; Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 506, 510-11. This action is ordered stayed pending completion of the arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

CORDAS VS. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS

Defendant John Paul Mitchell Systems’ Joinder to Motion is granted. Plaintiff must arbitrate his individual claims against defendants. Plaintiff’s class claims are stricken and dismissed without prejudice. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) 138 Sup. Ct. 1612; Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. (2010) 559 U.S. 662, 686; Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 506, 510-11. This action is ordered stayed pending completion of the arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

CORDAS VS. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS

Defendant John Paul Mitchell Systems’ Joinder to Motion is granted. Plaintiff must arbitrate his individual claims against defendants. Plaintiff’s class claims are stricken and dismissed without prejudice. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) 138 Sup. Ct. 1612; Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. (2010) 559 U.S. 662, 686; Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 506, 510-11. This action is ordered stayed pending completion of the arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

EDDIE TURNER VS U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET AL

Party: Eddie Turner SUBJECT: (2) Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary Adjudication Moving Party: Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC (erroneously sued as Nationstar Mortgage) Resp. Party: Eddie Turner The Court GRANTS U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment. The Court GRANTS Nationstar’s joinder to the motion for summary judgment. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: I. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment was filed on 12/31/2019 and is untimely.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

EDDIE TURNER VS U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET AL

Party: Eddie Turner SUBJECT: (2) Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary Adjudication Moving Party: Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC (erroneously sued as Nationstar Mortgage) Resp. Party: Eddie Turner The Court GRANTS U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment. The Court GRANTS Nationstar’s joinder to the motion for summary judgment. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: I. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment was filed on 12/31/2019 and is untimely.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

JAMIE GAROFALO VS MATTHEW BOHNERT, ET AL.

Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 636-637 [holding that joinder to motion for summary judgment should have been denied as untimely filed].) Here, joinder papers were due by October 29, 2019. As a result, Defendant Bohnert’s November 8, 2019 joinder motion is untimely. However, because Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the joinder motion, the court exercises its discretion to consider the merits. Generally, “only signatories to an arbitration agreement may enforce it. [Citation.]” (Rowe v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KRISTIN ORTIZ VS TESLA, INC., ET AL.

On September 17, 2019, Defendant Antonio Shelly filed a Joinder to Motion. On its own motion, the Court continued the hearing on the instant motion to October 9, 2019 to comply with statutory notice requirements. Defendants seek an order compelling arbitration of all of Plaintiff’s claims and staying the action pending the outcome of arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KRISTIN ORTIZ VS TESLA, INC., ET AL.

The Court notes a Joinder to Motion was filed by Defendant Antonio Shelly on September 17, 2019. The Joinder is untimely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). The Court admonishes the parties to strictly comply with the notice requirements set forth in Section 1005(b) going forward. Plaintiff has not opposed the Joinder based on its untimeliness, but on its merits. The Court thus continues the hearing to comply with the statutory notice requirements.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ARIETTA VS. ROCK N. ROBLES, INC

Joinder to Motion Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Plaintiff. Moving Party Defendant Jeffrey Fairbairn. Responding Party Plaintiff Tobey Arietta. Opposition filed. Ruling: Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff Tobey Arietta shall pay sanctions in the amount of $250.00 to Defendant Rock ‘N’ Robles, Inc. by October 14, 2019. Defendant’s Joinder was timely filed and served.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

ARIETTA VS. ROCK N. ROBLES, INC

Joinder to Motion Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Plaintiff. Moving Party Defendant Jeffrey Fairbairn. Responding Party Plaintiff Tobey Arietta. Opposition filed. Ruling: Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff Tobey Arietta shall pay sanctions in the amount of $250.00 to Defendant Rock ‘N’ Robles, Inc. by October 14, 2019. Defendant’s Joinder was timely filed and served.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

BERNOLDOR HAIR VS 2MANGAS INC ET AL

(“McDonalds”) JOINDER TO MOTION TO STRIKE: Defendants 2Mangas, Inc. (“2Mangas”), Anthony Lardas (“Lardas”), and Serafin Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Bernoldor Hair (“Plaintiff”) The Court has considered the moving, opposing and reply papers.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PATRIOT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC VS THOMAS SCRANTON ET AL

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Arbitration Joinder to Motion Moving Party: Cross-defendants Meadow, Kromwyk, CPAC Holding, and Shadow Frog Resp. Party: Cross-complainant/Defendant Thomas Scranton Joining Party: Cross-defendants PES and CPAC Cross-defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PATRIOT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC VS THOMAS SCRANTON ET AL

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Arbitration Joinder to Motion Moving Party: Cross-defendants Meadow, Kromwyk, CPAC Holding, and Shadow Frog Resp. Party: Cross-complainant/Defendant Thomas Scranton Joining Party: Cross-defendants PES and CPAC Cross-defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Cross-complainant Scranton’s causes of action 1-7 and 12-15 against Cross-defendants are ordered to arbitration pursuant to the CPAC Holding Agreement and Shadow Frog Agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MICHAEL S YU A L C ET AL VS BANK OF THE WEST ET AL

(1) MOTION TO SET ASIDE REFEREE’S STATEMENTS OF DECISION; (2) NOTICE OF JOINDER IN MOTION TO SET ASIDE REFEREE’S STATEMENT OF DECISION; (3) MOTION TO SET ASIDE REFEREE’S STATEMENTS OF DECISION; (4) NOTICE OF JOINDER TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE REFEREE’S STATEMENTS OF DECISION MOVING PARTY: (1) Defendant Bank of the West; (2) Defendants Commercial Loan Solutions, LLC and Commercial Loan Solutions, III, LLC; (3) Defendants Commercial Loan Solutions, LLC and Commercial Loan Solutions, III, LLC; (4) Defendant

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

AMARO VS ANAHEIM ARENA MANAGEMENT LLC

1.Plaintiff Irena Amaro’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Motion for Attorney Fees 2.Defendant Anaheim Arena Management LLC’s Joinder to Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement No Tentative will be posted in this matter.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

MICHAEL S YU A L C ET AL VS BANK OF THE WEST ET AL

(1) MOTION TO SET ASIDE REFEREE’S STATEMENTS OF DECISION; (2) NOTICE OF JOINDER IN MOTION TO SET ASIDE REFEREE’S STATEMENT OF DECISION; (3) MOTION TO SET ASIDE REFEREE’S STATEMENTS OF DECISION; (4) NOTICE OF JOINDER TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE REFEREE’S STATEMENTS OF DECISION MOVING PARTY: (1) Defendant Bank of the West; (2) Defendants Commercial Loan Solutions, LLC and Commercial Loan Solutions, III, LLC; (3) Defendants Commercial Loan Solutions, LLC and Commercial Loan Solutions, III, LLC; (4) Defendant

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

PATRICIA ANN EMERY ET AL VS JENNY MARCHICK ET AL

Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 636-637 [holding that joinder to motion for summary judgment should have been denied as untimely filed].) Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), motion papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. Defendant Bank of America reserved a hearing for its motion for judgment on the pleadings to be held on January 22, 2019. A notice of joinder was due by December 27, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

PHILLIP J BRAUNSTEIN VS DANIEL B KIM ET AL

Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 636-637 [holding that joinder to motion for summary judgment should have been denied as untimely filed].) Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), moving papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. Aztec’s motion contesting Dunn’s application was originally set to be heard on December 12, 2018. Moving papers were thus due by November 16, 2018. Wilshire Borgata filed its joinder motion on October 29, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

MY-PHUONG PHAM ET AL VS BEN BOLTON ET AL

(1) MOTION TO STRIKE RE: COMPLAINT; (2) NOTICE OF JOINDER TO MOTION TO STRIKE MOVING PARTY: (1) Defendant Lindsay Suiski (2) Defendant Ben Bolton RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) Plaintiffs My-Phuong Pham, et al. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have constructed a barrier to the easement which Plaintiffs have a right to use. Defendant Lindsay Suiski moves to strike portions of the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHARLES SANFORD VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION ET AL

(Littler, etc.) (1) DEFENDANT NORTHROP GRUMMMAN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY CIVIL ACTION (filed 8/3/18) (2) DEFENDANTS WILLARD, MALONE, AND HOLMES JOINDER TO MOTION TO COMPEL (filed 10/4/18) TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Willard, Malone, Percy Holmes’ joinder motion is GRANTED. Defendant Northrop Grumman Corporation’s motion to compel arbitration: Hear argument. DISCUSSION Joinder Joinder motions must be timely filed. (See, e.g., Frazee v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WEINTRAUB FINANCIAL SERVICES INC ET AL VS JOSEPH S YARMAN

(1) MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; (2) JOINDER TO MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL MOVING PARTY: (1) Defendant Mildred Lim Almazan; (2) Defendants Joseph Yarman, Robin Jordan, and Sunzone Real Estate Group, Inc. dba The Real Estate Group RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) No opposition filed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DANIEL CUELLAR ET AL V GEORGE GALGAS ET AL

Defendant Galgas’ Continued Joinder to Motion for Terminating Sanctions Plaintiffs Daniel and Celia Cuellar (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on November 7, 2016. After multiple demurrers by multiple defendants, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on June 7, 2018. This action arises out of Plaintiffs’ purchase of a parcel of real property at 22 Deer View Lane in Templeton, California (“Property”) from George Galgas (“Galgas”) and Patricia Galgas in November 2015.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2018

REFUGIO VS. CITY OF HERCULES

SPECIAL SET HEARING ON: JOINDER TO MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT SET BY CITY OF HERCULES * TENTATIVE RULING: * See Line 3

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2018

1 2 3 4 5 6     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.