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

TOWER PARK PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS HUGHES INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

(See Dem. at 12, RJN Ex. 8 [Hughes Investment Partnership, LLC (“HIP”) and MH Holdings II H, LLC joinder to motion to approve settlement agreement] and RJN Ex. 9 [hearing transcript for motion to approve settlement agreement].) Defendants also point out that FTIC was appointed as trustee ad litem and that neither FTIC or Alexander Hughes were parties to the settlement agreement so they, by their actions, could not have breached the settlement agreement. (See also Ex.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

MATTER OF THE ALICE M. DOLLAR TRUST

RE: JOINDER TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED ON 07/20/20 BY PAUL L COSTA, JR PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE See 7.A above

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CARLOS OCHOA VS EMPLOYBRIDGE HOLDING COMPANY DBA SELECT FAMILY OF STAFFING COMPANIES, ET AL.

.: 20STCV02475 Hearing Date: 11/9/2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Moving Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration; Defendant Commodity Forwarders, Inc.’s Joinder to Motion The Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. Joinder to the Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. Proceedings are stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. I.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ML DOE VS. DOE 1, A CORPORATION

JOINDER TO MOTION TO STAY/QUASH SUBPOENA RULING: The hearing on Non-Party Tod Brown’s Motion to Stay Deposition and Quash Deposition Subpoena to Bishop Tod Brown and Defendant The Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange’s Joinder thereto is CONTINUED to 1/12/21 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C19 pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s “Notice of Submission of Add-On Request and Petition for Coordination (and Request for Stay of Proceedings Prior to Determination of Petition)”.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

STEVEN POWERS VS MARCOS VIVIAN, ET AL.

Emsaffa’s Memorandum of Costs Emsaffa’s memorandum of costs seeks to recover a total of $705 in costs, broken down as follows: (1) $435 first appearance fee, (2) $60 joinder to motion, (3) $60 demurrer to FAC, (4) $150 jury fees deposit. (see Emsaffa Memorandum of Costs, p. 4.) Plaintiff contends that everything except Emsaffa’s first appearance fee should be taxed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

WALTER GARCIA VS PDS TECH, INC., ET AL.

Defendant, PDS Tech, Inc.’s Joinder to Motion On 9/30/20, PDS filed a joinder to Gulfstreams’ motion. Plaintiff opposes the joinder on procedural grounds only. Plaintiff argues the joinder must be denied because (a) PDS did not make a reservation or pay a fee, (b) PDS improperly relies on a different agreement, and therefore the joinder is not really a joinder, but instead a separate motion, and (c) PDS’s joinder was not timely. PDS shows, in reply, that it did pay a filing fee for its joinder.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NASSER SEDAGHAT VS TARZANA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

David Sedaghat (opposition); Plaintiffs Allen Sedaghat and Michael Sedaghat (joinder to motion) (3) Motion for Leave to Intervene or Alternatively File Supplemental Pleading Moving Party: Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat Resp. Party: Defendants SSC Tarzana Operating Company, LP dba Tarzana Heath and Rehabilitation Center (Doe 1) and Savaseniorcare Administrative Services, LLC (Doe 2) (4) Motion to Disqualify Counsel Moving Party: Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat Resp.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HUMBLE HOLDINGS, INC. VS. GPE PROPERTIES, INC.

Motion 2 Defendant/Cross-Complainant GPE Properties, Inc.’s Joinder to Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied without prejudice for the same reasons set forth above.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

CARLOS OCHOA VS EMPLOYBRIDGE HOLDING COMPANY DBA SELECT FAMILY OF STAFFING COMPANIES, ET AL.

.: 20STCV02475 Hearing Date: 10/6/2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Moving Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration; Joinder to Motion Defendants Employbridge Holding Company; Employbridge, LLC; and Real Time Staffing Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is continued to 11/09/20. Hearing on Defendant Commodity Forwarders, Inc.’s Joinder to Moving Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is continued to the same date.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ODG SWEEGEN LLC VS CHEN

Sweegen’s Joinder to Motion to Seal 3. Chen Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena 4. Sweegen Inc.’s Joinder to Motion to Quash 5. SweegenInc.’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Motion to Seal The Court has spent substantial time attempting to review the over 1100 pages submitted in connection with this Motion to determine whether the redactions are justified by an overriding interest under CRC, rule 2.550 et seq..

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

ODG SWEEGEN LLC VS CHEN

Sweegen’s Joinder to Motion to Seal 3. Chen Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena 4. Sweegen Inc.’s Joinder to Motion to Quash 5. SweegenInc.’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Motion to Seal The Court has spent substantial time attempting to review the over 1100 pages submitted in connection with this Motion to determine whether the redactions are justified by an overriding interest under CRC, rule 2.550 et seq..

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

JOEL PASCHAL VS KOLLIDER INDUSTRIES LLC ET AL

Party: Plaintiff Joel Paschal (4) Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary Adjudication Moving Party: Defendant Peter Lugo Resp. Party: Plaintiff Joel Paschal Plaintiff’s Joel Paschal’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Defendant Peter Lugo’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED. Defendants Cre8 MBR, LLC, Marc Williamson, Brett Williamson, John Williamson’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOEL PASCHAL VS KOLLIDER INDUSTRIES LLC ET AL

Party: Plaintiff Joel Paschal (4) Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary Adjudication Moving Party: Defendant Peter Lugo Resp. Party: Plaintiff Joel Paschal Plaintiff’s Joel Paschal’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Defendant Peter Lugo’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED. Defendants Cre8 MBR, LLC, Marc Williamson, Brett Williamson, John Williamson’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MOJGAN ESAGOFF, ET AL VS 621 RODEO DRIVE LLC, ET AL

.: SC129395 (Related to 18STCV01187 & 19STCV09266) MOTION: Motion to Consolidate & joinder to motion to consolidate Background SC129395 On March 6, 2020, Plaintiffs Mojgan Esagoff and Abbey Esagoff, individually and as trustees for The Abbey and Mojgan Esagoff Trust (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a second amended complaint against Defendants 621 Rodeo Drive LLC, Fred Bahari Moghadam, City Wall Builders, Inc., and City Wall Construction, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) for negligence.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

TAYLOR JACKSON VS ANTHONY MISITANO, ET AL.

On the same day, Defendant Misitano filed a Joinder to Motion to Transfer. Legal Standard On timely motion, the court must order a transfer of venue “when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 396b, 397(a).) “Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482; Haurat v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TAYLOR JACKSON VS ANTHONY MISITANO, ET AL.

On the same day, Defendant Misitano filed a Joinder to Motion to Transfer. Legal Standard On timely motion, the court must order a transfer of venue “when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 396b, 397(a).) “Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482; Haurat v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RE: JOINDER TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

FILED ON 07/20/20 BY PAUL L COSTA, JR Drop. Calendared in error by clerk. Need appearances Need appearances Notes: 1. Objection filed by Anthony Trucks, Randall Hart Sr., Randall Hart Jr., Bradley Costa, Amber Worthen, Ashley Worthen and Vanessa Macon 8/26/19. 2. Response to Objection filed 11/4/19....

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE ALICE M. DOLLAR TRUST

RE: JOINDER TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FILED ON 07/20/20 BY PAUL L COSTA, JR PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Drop. Calendared in error by clerk. Need appearances PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances Notes: 1. Objection filed by Anthony Trucks, Randall Hart Sr., Randall Hart Jr., Bradley Costa, Amber Worthen, Ashley Worthen and Vanessa Macon 8/26/19. 2. Response to Objection filed 11/4/19.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DALE HARM VS THE BANK OF NEW Y

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR JOINDER TO MOTION TO DECLARE PLTF A VEXATIOUS FILED BY THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON * TENTATIVE RULING: * There are multiple pending matters before the court. In order to fully review the matters and prepare a satisfactory, comprehensive analysis as to each item, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to August 31, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SMARTMED, INC. V. FIRSTCHOICE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

Explanation: FirstChoice’s Notice of Joinder to Motion: First of all, the court intends to disregard the “notice of joinder” to Vantage’s summary judgment/adjudication motion that was filed by FirstChoice and the individual defendants, and deny their request to join in Vantage’s motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.