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 Rulings on Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Recent Rulings on Memorandum of Points and Authorities

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

(See California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1113.) ANALYSIS Yes (3/27/19; 8/7/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ANNE SHOYKHET, ET AL. VS NATHALIE DUBOIS, ET AL.

While the request for judicial notice does not comply with rules 3.1113(l) and 3.1306(c), the Court nonetheless GRANTS Defendant’s request, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

THEODORE MERCURE VS LEONARD GROVE

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).) (Emphasis added.) While Petitioner does cite California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702, subdivision (d) for the timing of his motion and case law for the reasonableness of the amount of attorney’s fees sought, he does not cite any authority that demonstrates the Court can award attorney’s fees as requested. Thus, Petitioner is ordered to file and serve a supplemental brief addressing these deficiencies.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RICHARD WEGER ET AL VS MARY ALICE MEDINA

CRC 3.1113(b). “Issues not supported by citation to legal authority are subject to forfeiture.” People ex rel. Alzayat v. Hebb, 18 Cal.App.5th 801, 831 n10 (2017) (applying similar CRC 8.204(a)(1)(B) applicable to appeals). Also, when a party demurs to the entire complaint, if the petition states any cause of action, the court will overrule the demurrer. Warren v. Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36 (1971). Weger/Dagg has not demurred to the fifth and sixth causes of action in the CC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

RANDY MCCLOUD VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL AT CULVER CITY

Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [memorandum in support of motion must contain “arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced”].) Therefore, in all other respects, Defendants’ motions to strike are DENIED. Defendants shall file and serve their answers to the Third Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

TIFFANIE CALDWELL, ET AL. VS SAMAN BEHNAM, ET AL.

Code § 452 and CRC rules 3.1306(c) and 3.1113(1). Demurrer Interference with Expected Inheritance “…[W]here a probate remedy is available, it must be pursued. In addition, the only plaintiffs who will be able to utilize the tort are those who lack an adequate probate remedy because of the interference of another. In a sense, the interfering tortfeasor has “obtained the benefit of the testamentary intent rule by committing a tort against a third party…” (Beckwith v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

DAGHIGHIAN VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

CRC 3.1113(a). Based upon these grounds, the court sustains the unopposed demurrer. Although the demurrer is unopposed, the court finds that Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to cure the defects in the operative complaint that were raised by Defendant in the demurrer. Defendant to give notice. Future Hearings: MSC: 3/26/21 Jury Trial: 5/24/21

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ABDELLATIF JOUIBLI, ET AL. VS DIANA CAMACHO

(CRC 3.1113(l)). Judicial notice may be taken of¿“(d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” (Evid. Code § 452.)¿ Plaintiff requests judicial notice of an Order from Department 32 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, dated February 21, 2020, titled Lunine v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. BC713294. The Court GRANTS this request.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

TAAT VS. FAZELI

(California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a).) Thus, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer as to the third and twenty-first causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ELIZABETH BOJORQUEZ VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

(CRC 3.1113(l)). Judicial notice may be taken of¿“(d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” (Evid. Code § 452.)¿ Plaintiff requests judicial notice of an Order from Department 32 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, dated February 21, 2020, titled Lunine v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. BC713294. The Court GRANTS this request.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(CRC 3.1113(l)). Judicial notice may be taken of¿“(d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” (Evid. Code § 452.)¿ Plaintiff requests judicial notice of an Order from Department 32 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, dated February 21, 2020, titled Lunine v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. BC713294. The Court GRANTS this request.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

OMNI SOUTH HILL LP VS IKE IKEME

Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a) “[t]he court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion . . . is not meritorious and cause for its denial.” Therefore, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Moving Defendant’s motion to set aside/vacate default and default judgment. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JEANETTE FRANCE VS LOS ANGELES DEPT OF WATER AND POWER ET AL

(CRC 3.1113(d).) Although the Court has discretion to ignore papers that are over the limit, the Court will consider the opposition in making its ruling. Analysis: In its motion for summary judgment ruling, the Court found that Plaintiff met her initial burden and established a prima facie case of disability discrimination. Plaintiff alleged that she was terminated because of a disability and because she had filed for workers’ compensation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

2009 WELLINGTON ROAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MICHELLE HAGUE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The moving brief clearly satisfied CRC Rule 3.1113(b). (Cf. Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 933 [half-page memorandum did not comply with Rule 3.1113(b) and was a basis to deny the motion].) Defendant next argues that “the Complaint does not include any demand for specific performance” and that “even if Plaintiff had hypothetically pleaded for specific performance, it would still not be enforceable because the Property is primarily an investment asset.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FINANCIAL PACIFIC LEASHING, INC., A WASHINGTON CORP. V. GURPREETDHALIWAL

(California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113.) Explanation: Plaintiff satisfies the procedural and substantive requirements to obtain writs of possession, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, et seq. Plaintiff also meets its burden of showing a likelihood of success, or the probable validity of the claim to possession of the property. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 512.060, subd. (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Indeed, rule 3.1113, subdivision (d) specifically provides that the “page limit does not include the caption page, the notice of motion and motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, the table of contents, the table of authorities, or the proof of service.” Thus, the Court finds Respondent did not violate Rule 3.1113. B. Request for Production Nos. 12 & 13 The Court first examines Requests for Production Nos. 12 and 13.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

2009 WELLINGTON ROAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MICHELLE HAGUE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The moving brief clearly satisfied CRC Rule 3.1113(b). (Cf. Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 933 [half-page memorandum did not comply with Rule 3.1113(b) and was a basis to deny the motion].) Defendant next argues that “the Complaint does not include any demand for specific performance” and that “even if Plaintiff had hypothetically pleaded for specific performance, it would still not be enforceable because the Property is primarily an investment asset.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The moving brief clearly satisfied CRC Rule 3.1113(b). (Cf. Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 933 [half-page memorandum did not comply with Rule 3.1113(b) and was a basis to deny the motion].) Defendant next argues that “the Complaint does not include any demand for specific performance” and that “even if Plaintiff had hypothetically pleaded for specific performance, it would still not be enforceable because the Property is primarily an investment asset.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ROBERTO ALVARADO, ET AL. VS HZB MANUFACTURING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(CRC Rule 3.1113(a); Nelson v. Avondale HOA (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862-863 [argument waived if not supported by reasoned argument and citation to authorities]; Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934 [same].) Presumably, Plaintiffs mean to argue that alleged non-payment of profits shows that Defendants have misappropriated funds or otherwise mismanaged the business. In the moving papers, Plaintiffs cite no evidence to support such claim.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FERNANDO HERNANDEZ VS GEORGE "FRANK" ALVAREZ

In addition, California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1113(b) states that a memorandum of points and authorities “must contain . . . a concise statement of the law. . . and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” Alvarez’s references to CRC Rules 3.1342, 3.723, 3.727 and 3.728 provide no basis for the filing of a motion to dismiss, and merely discuss the matters to be addressed by the court during a Case Management Conference.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MITRA RASHTI VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d), (e).) Therefore, the Court does not consider pages 16-22. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants request the Court to take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s verified petition in Mitra Rashti v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. BS169304; (2) the judgment in Mitra Rashti v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. BS169304; and (3) a notice designating the record in the Court of Appeal Mitra Rashti v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B302934. Plaintiff does not oppose.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

YOUNG VS. PARRY

(California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a).) Second COA (Business and Professions Code section 17200): “The UCL [Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.] defines unfair competition as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” [Citation.]” (In re Tobacco Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 311.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ERIC PREVEN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Moreover, CRC Rule 3.1113 provides that a motion must include a memorandum in support of motion. It states in part that “[a] party filing a motion... 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 Rule 3.1113(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

BEHZAD FORAT ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

(CRC 3.1113(l)). Judicial notice may be taken of “(b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. (d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EVANINA ALANIZ, ET AL. VS AMG CARE FIGUEROA, LLC, ET AL.

(CRC Rule 3.1113(l).) Defendant has not requested the court take judicial notice of the Successor in Interest Declaration on file with the court, or provided grounds for the court to accept the truth of its contents. Accordingly, the Declaration and facts contained within it are not considered as extraneous matter not part of the instant motion to strike portions of the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 91     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.