What is a Memorandum of Points and Authorities?

Whenever a motion is filed with the court it must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum of points and authorities. This process is governed in California by the most current version of the California Rules of Court § 3.1113.

“A party filing a motion, except for a motion listed in rule 3.1114, must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported.” (CRC 3.1113(a).)

“The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Id.)

The rule goes on to explain the format citations should be in and also the acceptable lengths the memorandum can be. “Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.” (Id.) If the memorandum is for summary judgment or summary adjudication then it can be up to a maximum of 20 pages. (Id.) The caption page, notice of motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, table of contents, table of authorities, and proof of service do not count toward the page total of a memorandum. (Id.)

Parties are allowed to ask the court ex parte for permission to file a longer memorandum so long as they notify the other parties in writing and explain to the court why the argument could not be made in a standard memorandum. (Id.)

California Rules of Court § 3.1114 lists the civil motions, applications, and petitions that do not require a memorandum such as motion to be relieved as counsel, motion filed in a small claims case, petition for change of name or gender, etc. (CRC 3.1114.) However, “if it would further the interests of justice” a party can file a motion or the court can order one submitted but it must still comply with the guidelines in CRC § 3.1113. (Id.)

Useful Resources for Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Recent Rulings on Memorandum of Points and Authorities

DONGHONG DENG, ET AL. VS EAST WEST BANK, ET AL.

California Rules of Court Non-Compliance At the outset, the court notes that the demurrer reflects non-compliance with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1113, subdivision (d) (i.e., “[e]xcept in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages . . .”). Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities is 17 pages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MR EARNEST A DAVIS VS DOKTOR INGENIEUR HONORIS CAUSA FERDINAND NOTICE OF DEMURRER BY

Opposition The Opposition’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities is 32 pages long – more than double the allowable 15 pages under CRC 3.1113(d). A memorandum exceeding the permissible page limits “must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper,” meaning the court in its discretion may refuse to consider it in ruling on the motion. (CRC 3.1113(g); CRC 3.1300(d).) The Court has exercised its discretion, and has read and considered the complete opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

KILEY TASLITZ ANDERSON VS MADISON + VINE, INC., ET AL.

As a preliminary matter, Shani’s opposition is 22 pages in violation of CRC Rule 3.1113(d), which limits response papers to 15 pages. The Court in its discretion considers Shani’s opposition; however, in the future the Court will not consider pages in violation of Rule 3.113(d). Requests for Judicial Notice Petitioner’s 12/28/20 request for judicial notice is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE V. LOS OLIVOS COMMUNITY ORG

“Rule 3.1113 rests on a policy-based allocations of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party’s theories by freeing it from any obligation to comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide.” (Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934.) There are no issues of triable fact on defendant’s affirmative defense of adverse possession.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

KARAS VS TUMBRELLO

There is no memorandum of points and authorities as required under California Rules of Court, rules 3.1112(a)(3) and 3.1113(a). There is no declaration authenticating the exhibits attached to the motion. The request for production issue is not attached to the motion. In addition, the nature of the relief sought is unclear.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

CINDI ARRATA VS ARCADIA OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER, L.P., ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a).) Defense counsel states that on November 23, 2020, he left a voicemail for Plaintiff’s counsel to meet and confer. He further states that on November 24, 2020, he sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel. However, he has not received a response to either the voicemail or the letter to discuss the issues raised in the Demurrer. The meet and confer requirement is satisfied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ASHAR VS HANLEY ET AL.

(See Rule of Court 3.1113(d); (e).) As Ashar observes in her reply papers, the Court is required to treat an overlong brief as if it were filed late. (Rule of Court 3.1113(g).) The practical effect is that the Court may disregard the opposition, because the Court has “broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers.” (Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 262.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

JOYCE VS. H. BRONSON BASSIR, DDS, INC.

., Rule 3.1113(b). Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 3.1113(b). Plaintiff’s memorandum did not include any statement of the law or arguments relied upon, or a discussion of the legal authority in support of the position she advances. Instead, Plaintiff copied and pasted the Court of Appeal’s opinion and included a brief analysis of the cited legal authority in the opinion. Plaintiff did not provide the applicable legal authority to support her requested relief.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

OPTIMA CONSTRUCTION, INC. V. RESCH

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a); Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934.) Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained with 15 days leave to amend. Defendant shall give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

JOYCE ALLEN VS STAPLES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Twenty pages is the statutorily-mandated length for an opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment [see CRC Rule 3.1113(d)] and Plaintiff never presented good cause for this Court to exercise its discretion to allow a lengthier opposition. (See Jan. 6, 2021 Minute Order.) Further, decent editing of the opposition would have allowed this issue to have been raised – had Plaintiff’s counsel been aware of this issue when they filed their opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

HOLLOWAY VS. BREA OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

(California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a).) Thus, to the extent that the District sought to demur on the grounds of uncertainty, the Court deems it has been waived. The Court also notes that plaintiff submits four documents in support of her Opposition that are extrinsic to the Complaint. A demurrer can only be used to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

SHIVASHANKAR V. GIRISH

The RJN is thus DENIED for failure to comply with CRC 3.1113 and 3.1306(c). Counsel for Defendant is to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

COMMUNITY FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

(See California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113; Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934 [court is not “tacit advocate” for the parties]; Nelson v. Avondale HOA (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862-863 [argument must be supported by reasoned analysis]; Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1282 [same].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

ELIJAH EDWARDS VS LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

CRC 3.1113(b) requires a memorandum in support of a demurrer to contain a concise statement of the law, as well as a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. The Court cannot meaningfully evaluate the demurrer without any citation to or discussion of authority.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ANDREA JIMENEZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA, ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a).) Defense counsel states that on October 21, 2020, he sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court does not see evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel meaningfully responded to the merits of this letter despite defense counsel’s attempts to follow up. The meet and confer requirement is satisfied. “The California Tort Claims Act provides that ‘a public entity is not liable for an injury,’ ‘except as otherwise provided by statute.’ (Gov. Code, § 815, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

LORELI RAMSAY LEVY VS NKAB-III LP ET AL

However, California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(l) requires any request for judicial notice to be made in a separate document. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(l).)¿ Issue 1: Limit The Length Of The PMQ Deposition To No More Than Seven Hours Defendant argues Plaintiff has completed over 16.5 hours of deposition testimony from PMQs designated by Defendant Vantage and 6 hours of deposition testimony of Defendant NKAB’s PMQ, Session One on September 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

PEREZ VS. ALIBASHA

., Rule 3.1113(d).) Defendant’s evidentiary objections to the Blake and Perez Declarations are overruled. Moving Party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

WILLIAM CARLYLE V. CAL FIRE, ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1113 prevents trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party’s theories].) day to file claims against Garcia was either June 26, 2019, or June 26, 2020 (depending on the claim made).

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA ET AL VS FERNANDO TOLEDO ALLENDE J

Rules of Court, Rules 3.1113(l), 3.1306(c).) Based on the foregoing, the motion to set aside dismissal is continued. Counsel is to file the documents proposed to be filed within 10 days. Dated: ____________________________ Gregory Alarcon Superior Court Judge

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WOSOUGHKIA VS. M3LIVE BAR & GRILL, INC.

In addition, Madain did not comply with CRC Rule 3.1113(f), which requires a memorandum that exceeds 10 pages include a table of contents and a table of authorities. Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1113(f). Judgment Creditors did not object to this deficiency. Subject to Madain’s objection to the service of the reply, the Court rules as follows. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187, “the court has the authority to amend a judgment to add additional judgment debtors.” NEC Electronics Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

JOHN BIRKE VS LOWES HOME CENTERS, LLC, A NORTH CAROLINA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is not made in a separate document as required by CRC 3.1113(l). In the future, Plaintiff is reminded to comply with applicable court rules. Ellison’s evidentiary objections (numbers 1-3) to the declaration of Michael R. Sohigian are sustained. On or before the last day to plead, a defendant may move to quash service of the summons and complaint on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant. CCP 418.10(a)(1).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NIBBLE THIS - EL MONTE, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CITY OF EL MONTE, ET AL.

(See City Oppo. 16; Reply 4-6; California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113; Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934 [court is not “tacit advocate” for the parties].) Assuming arguendo that Petitioner contends that Sections 5.18.070 and 5.18.300 required City to publish its internal grading rubric, Petitioner has not supported such argument.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RICK A. MACHADO V. GINGER L. MANKINS, ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b).) The demurrer is sustained for failure to state a cause of action for account stated. Because this is the first demurrer, the Court grants leave to amend. Machado is to file an amended complaint within ten (10) days from the service of the Notice of Ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472b.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DONGHONG DENG, ET AL. VS EAST WEST BANK, ET AL.

California Rules of Court Non-Compliance At the outset, the court notes that the demurrer reflects non-compliance with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1113, subdivision (d) (i.e., “[e]xcept in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages . . .”). Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities is 17 pages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARO BURUNSUZYAN VS DIMITRI ROGER

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(l) provides: “Any request for judicial notice must be made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested and must comply with rule 3.1306(c).” Judgement Creditor requests that the Court take judicial notice of “the Wikipedia and Republic Records internet information and the California Secretary of State’s website as facts not reasonably subject to dispute.” However, Judgment Creditor’s request was contained within her reply.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 107     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.