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

Recent Rulings on Joinder to Motion

151-156 of 156 results

LOIS WOODEND VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

S JOINDER TO Motion To Change Venue to Orange County Superior Court: OFF CALENDAR; INEFFECTIVE SERVICE BY FAX WITHOUT STIPULATION FOR SECOND TIME. (302/REQ/he)

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2005

BARRY M ARIKO VS. JOHN J. MOORES

Joinder To Motion Of Defts Moores, Noell & Mosley To Transfer Venue DEFENDANT STEPHEN GARDNER Joinder To Motion Of Defts Moores, Noell & Mosley To Transfer Venue. GRANTED. (302/JJM)

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2003

THIRD EYE BLIND,INC VS. NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO

Joinder To Motion For Good Faith Settlement Determination DEFENDANT PROVIDENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Joinder To Motion For Good Faith Settlement Determination HEARING REQUIRED.TO FOCUS PLAINTIFF'S ASSERTION THAT CLAIMS AGAINST .NEAR NORTH ARE SEPARATE AND APART FROM WRONG DOING OF NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY INS.CO. (302/REQ/RS)

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2003

THIRD EYE BLIND,INC VS. NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO

Joinder To Motion For Good Faith Settlement Determination DEFENDANT PROVIDENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Joinder To Motion For Good Faith Settlement Determination CONTINUE TO MAY 1, 2003 ON COURT'S OWN MOTION SO THAT JUDGE QUIDACHAY CAN HEAR.(302/PA/RS)

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2003

WOLFE VS WITTEMYER

Joinder To Motion To Strike Filed By Defts Berkowitz And Grant Building Company, Llc MOTION TO STRIKE THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT IS DENIED; THE MOTION TO STRIKE SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN FULL. (JH)

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2002

WOLFE VS WITTEMYER

Joinder To Motion To Strike Filed By Defts Berkowitz And Grant Building Company, Llc CONTINUED TO 9-19 PER AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2002

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.