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 Resources for Joinder to Motion

Rulings on Joinder to Motion

126-150 of 156 results

URBAN ROADS, LLC VS. JOHNSON

Joinder to Motion: Defendants Todd Johnson and Wasatch Furniture, LLC’s Joinder to the Motion for Receiver and OSC re Preliminary Injunction is DENIED for the same reasons set forth above. Moving party is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2018

SOUTHFORK RANCH LLC VS. DAVID BUNN

Joinder to motion filed by Plaintiff and cross-defendant R. Eric King aka Eric King on 11/14/16. Defendant TNC previously filed a cost memo on 8/18/15in the amount of $18,538.82. (Roach declaration, Ex. 1.) To Pl's knowledge, TNC filed no other cost memo in this matter until such time as it sought to prepare and prepared its award for attorneys fees herein at which time it included as costs the amount of $74,016.58.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2016

URBAN ROADS, LLC VS. JOHNSON

Joinder to Motion: Defendants Todd Johnson and Wasatch Furniture, LLC’s Joinder to the Motion for Receiver and OSC re Preliminary Injunction is DENIED for the same reasons set forth above. Moving party is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2018

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

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

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

YU VS. NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY

to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication 7) Defendant Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation’s Motion to Vacate Before the Court are six motions for summary judgment filed by the following defendants: (1) Scottsdale Indemnity Company (“Scottsdale”) (2) Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (“Liberty”) (3) American Safety Indemnity Company (“American Safety”) (4) Northland Insurance Company (“Northland”), filed 02/04/16 (5) Northland (again), filed 03/04/16 (6) Northland (again, as a joinder to Liberty

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2016

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

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

KRYSTAL SANDOVAL VS REPUBLIC SERVICES INC ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT KELLY SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARIBTRATION; DEFENDANT CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE, LLC’S JOINDER TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Background Plaintiff Krystal Sandoval (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action on November 16, 2017 against Defendants Republic Services, Inc. (“Republic Services”), Kelly Services, Inc. (“Kelly Services”), and Chris Doe. Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC (“CDS”) was added to replace Doe No. 2 on December 29, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

  • 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIMONE FEE VS MALIBU WINES

Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On February 8, 2018, Plaintiff Simone Fee filed a complaint against Defendant Malibu Wines and Does 1 to 25 for (1) strict liability and (2) negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

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

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

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

  « first    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.