What is a Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading?

The court is authorized to extend the deadline for “an act to be done.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 1054. The court may only extend the deadline by 30 days unless the other party consents to a longer period. Code Civ. Proc. § 1054(b).

“[I]t is well settled that orders of extension granted pursuant to... [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1054 must be made during the period of time within which the act may be done, that is, while the right is still alive; and, if made after the expiration of such period, the orders are void and confer no legal authority for the doing of the act.” Coast Electric Service v. Jensen (1931) 111 Cal.App. 124, 126; Start v. Heinzerling (1915) 27 Cal.App. 145, 148.

An application for an order extending the time within which an act is required to be done must be heard and determined by the judge before whom the matter is pending. Calif. Rules of Court, rule 2.20.

An extension of time to file a responsive pleading may also be granted under Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.41. This section requires that before filing a demurrer, “[t]he parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer. The 30-day extension shall commence from the date the responsive pleading was previously due, and the demurring party shall not be subject to default during the period of the extension. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(2).

Useful Rulings on Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading

Recent Rulings on Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs contend they are subject to the following interim harm: (1) the requirement that by 10/10/16 they submit a time consuming and burdensome new application, which applications may be denied for any number of new and trivial reasons; (2) the risk of Notices of Violation ("NOV") that can also be used to revoke a STR permit for minor violations, all of which can be criminally prosecuted and punished; (3) the loss of goodwill and damage to relations with renters, fewer bookings, and the potential need to

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

At the conclusion of oral argument relating to that issue, the Court allowed the parties the opportunity to brief two additional questions: (1) whether under the terms of the lease Defendant SARVS is entitled to be compensated for the potential loss of goodwill under Section 13.2(f), and (2) whether the calculation of the fair market value of the 2.9 acres in question should take into consideration the existence of the SCE-SARVS lease pertaining to that property.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The motion is MOOT as to Issue 2, which seeks adjudication of the Third Cause of Action, which Plaintiffs dismissed as to Count 1, under the General Contract. [ROA 2604.] Plaintiffs T-12 and HRG (only) are granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before May 15, 2019, limited to adding contract claims against the subcontractors arising from the subcontracts based on a theory of third-party beneficiary.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CAS004001, as amended on June 16, 2015 by State Board Order WQ 2015-0075, which is remanded to you for reconsideration in light of the Decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. Nothing herein shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in you. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to file with this Court a return to this writ on or before (90 plus 30 days as per Respondents’ request) stating what you have done to comply.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Plaintiff Francisco Velazquez’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Kim D. Stephens, Gregory F. Coleman, Paul C. Peel, Jason T. Dennett and Adam A. Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

MALIN VS AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION

Continued to 7-19-2019

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the South Central District, Compton, the Honorable Maurice Leiter, Judge presiding in Department A, for all purposes except trial.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Tang is requested to provide the court with an explanation regarding how the amounts sought were calculated and whether or not they pertain to 16010 Phoenix Drive, City of Industry, CA, 91745 only or to the entirety of the property identified in the lease agreement. ANALYSIS Yes (11/22/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

See above 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. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEST COVINA CAR STOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROUND TABLE REMARKETING D.R.S., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

After the checks had been sent to Round Table, Plaintiff learned that the vehicle price was to be paid directly to the selling dealer, and that only the broker fee was to be paid directly to Round Table. Round Table cashed the checks and refuse to return the monies to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VAGAN AZARYAN VS EXXON MOBILE

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Southeast District, Norwalk, the Honorable Margaret Miller Bernal, Judge presiding in Department F, for further reassignment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

DANIEL GINZBURG, ET AL. VS 15025 SATICOY STREET, INC., ET AL.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Northwest District, Van Nuys, the Honorable H. Cotton, Judge presiding in Department A, for further reassignment.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD MACIAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the South District, Long Beach, the Honorable Mark C. Kim, Judge presiding in Department S27, for all purposes except trial.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA PETERSON

The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA PETERSON

The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

The Loan was subsequently assigned to Plaintiff. Lopez has defaulted on the Loan by failing to make all required payments due thereunder. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Lopez and Does 1-5 for: Breach of Written Contract On January 16, 2020, Lopez’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference is set for March 23, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

I took the time to look at a calendar and compare each day with my recollection of time worked and records including emails, text messages, and various schedules, attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A,’ to calculate the number of hours that I worked in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.” (Plaintiff’s Supplemental Decl., ¶6.) Much of Exhibit A, however, is comprised of communications made in a foreign language. No translation has been provided. (See California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1113.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YESLENDER, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FIVE BULLS TRANSPORT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set for August 12, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED. ANALYSIS Yes (7/6/20) 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).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Plaintiff, however, has not filed any such motion or application; accordingly, the clerk will transfer all of unredacted documents lodged in connection with Emanate’s moving papers to the public file, pursuant to California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 2.551(b)(3)(B). Evidentiary Objections Emanate has filed 42 pages of objections to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement and 48 pages of objections to Plaintiff’s evidence.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

The following defects are noted: Plaintiff seeks $158,213.04 as the “demand of complaint” set forth on Judicial Council Form CIV-100; however, the prayer of Plaintiff’s complaint generically refers to “[g]eneral damages according to proof,” “[s]pecial damages according to proof,” “[p]unitive damages according to proof,” “[r]estitution in an amount according to proof,” “[r]easonable attorneys fee [sic] according to proof,” “[c]ost of the suit herein incurred” and “[a]ny other and further relief the court considers

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On March 24, 2020, defendant filed his Reply Brief, noting that the judgment had become final because no notice of appeal was filed prior to March 20, 2020. [See, C.C.P. sec. 904.2; CRC Rule 8.822(A).] Since no motion for reconsideration or to vacate the judgment were filed, the Court agrees that the time to appeal the judgment entered in this matter expired on March 20, 2020. Accordingly, the Court cannot revisit the issue of defendant’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the judgment.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

Ecourt records reflect that on October 23, 2019, the court denied Plaintiff’s request for entry of default against Tissuesco for the following reason: “No POS on file, image is for other defendant.” Both proofs of service filed September 25, 2019 are for Chen. Plaintiff must correct the foregoing deficiency before the court will review the sufficiency of the default prove-up package.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS GOTHAM DEVELOPMENTS LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The declaration lacks the requisite language for admissibility (ie: identification of the place of signing and/or a statement providing “under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California…” if signed outside of California.) To be admissible, a declaration made out-of-state for use in California must state that the statements were made under penalty of California law in material compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Kulshrestha v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

REBEKAH CEHAJIC VS Z&A ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Central District, Los Angeles, the Honorable M. Linfield, Judge presiding in Department 34, for all purposes except trial.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE FRANCES CARLENTINE

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Final Distribution No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.