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

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, contingent upon Plaintiff’s production of the original promissory note to the court for cancellation in compliance with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1806 (i.e., “[i]n all cases in which judgment is rendered upon a written obligation to pay money, the clerk must, at the time of entry of judgment, unless otherwise ordered, note over the clerk’s official signature and across the face of the writing the fact of rendition of judgment

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

See below.AFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 28 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 transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE MICHAEL P.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

.;” however, the “Credit Application and Agreement” attached as Exhibit A to the complaint and as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Glen Hansen (“Hansen”) references “CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC” at the top of Page 1 and does not appear to make any reference to Cemex USA, Inc. Hansen’s declaration also refers to “Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC” as Plaintiff. It would appear that a substitution of plaintiff is needed. ANALYSIS Yes (10/16/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

On or about April 14, 2017, Plaintiff and SLG agreed to assign and amend the Lease, with Plaintiff’s consent, to New Diamond Trucking, Inc. (“New Diamond”). In or around April 17, 2017, New Diamond, with Plaintiff’s permission, subleased a portion of the subject property to Sweet & Cozy Furniture, Inc. (“Sweet & Cozy”). New Diamond breached the Lease by failing to pay rent.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

Liu”) entered into an oral contract, wherein Liu agreed to wire funds that Plaintiff provided to Liu to an account at JP Morgan Chase Bank. Liu failed to wire $930,000.00 of these funds. On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against X. Liu (“Liu”), Shi Qiang Zhang (“S. Zhang”), Lina Zhang (“L. Zhang”) and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Contract Fraud Conversion Common Counts (i.e., Money Had and Received) On November 9, 2019, X. Liu’s and S.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

See below.AFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 28 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 transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE MICHAEL P.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

At that time, this Court informed counsel for the Cross-Complainant that there was insufficient information regarding the defendants’ resources to properly determine punitive damages. When this Court stated that it appeared that all other damages sought appeared to be appropriate, counsel withdrew the punitive damages request.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Additionally, the promissory note attached as Exhibit 1 to Hutzenbiler’s Declaration reflects that Andiamo agreed to pay the loan in 12 monthly installments, with the first payment due on or before July 31, 2017 in the amount of $5,932.95, and with each subsequent monthly payment due on or before the 31st of each month, in an amount of $5,932.95. The entire remaining outstanding balance of principal was to be due on June 29, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

HASMIK KANATARYAN, ET AL. VS CHARLENE SARSTEDT, ET AL.

No further hearings are in Dept. 28, Spring StreetAFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:Department 28 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 transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE CURTIS A. KIN presiding in DEPT.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS TOTAL BODY EXPERTS LLC, ET AL.

The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

KOEN WOO KIM VS CENTRAL FITNESS, LP, ET AL.

If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to [email protected] stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RE: PET’N FOR APRVL OF AMENDED FIRST ACCT & RPT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE,

Spouse did not file an election to subject any inheritance to formal administration so therefore court lacks jurisdiction to order distribution to spouse or fees thereon. Need petition (may be ex parte) showing good cause for allowing late election, and order. Otherwise you will need amended petition eliminating spouse’s portion and a recalculation of statutory fees. Proposed election must comply with LR 7.305. See PrC §§ 13500, 13501, 13502 3.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE LLOYD W HARRICH TRUST

RE: RPT OF SUC T'TEE PET’N FOR INSTRUCTIONS FILED ON 02/19/19 BY GABRIELA B ODELL PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation Note: Response filed by Monica Harrich-Griswold and Jessica Harrich 9-30-19.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

FILED ON 10/16/19 BY MONICA L HARRICH-GRISWOLD, JESSICA J HARRICH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST & FNL ACCT & RPT OF ADMNTR & PET’N FOR SETTLEMENT & FNL DIST

FILED ON 08/19/20 BY JAMES A WALTERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Declaration addressing creditor claim filed by Far Hills MHP on 8-2-19 for $5,000.00. PrC § 10900; CRC § 7.403. 2. Proposed Order JAMES A WALTERS DANIEL T. QUANE, ESQ. RALPH EDWIN WALTERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Moving paper is in Vol. 3. Need: 1. Appearances to report status, including 9-8-2020 order to meet and confer 2.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS REGARDING ACCOUNTING OBJECTION

FILED ON 11/06/19 BY MONICA L HARRICH-GRISWOLD, JESSICA J HARRICH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE BOWERMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST

Proof of mailing a copy of the Petition for Probate to all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.151(e) 3. Corrected proof of mailing to verify Proof of Service attached to Notice filed 9-1-2020. 4. Proof of mailing to Terese Merrell, issue of Mark Merrell, trustee of trust and trust beneficiaries or waivers of notice. PrC § 8110; LR 7.151(e) ALFRED LEWIS MERRELL MARK ALFRED MERRELL KEVIN M CORBETT PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SHAFIQ SIDIQI VS GAYANE BALABANYAN

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT LUIS ALFONSO, Plaintiff, vs. MIRIAM RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. CASE NO.: 19STLC06257 ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: December 10, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT LUIS ALFONSO, Plaintiff, vs. MIRIAM RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. CASE NO.: 19STLC06257 ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: December 10, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

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 load this page.