What is a Order Shortening Time to Serve A Motion?

“The court, on its own motion or on application for an order shortening time supported by a declaration showing good cause, may prescribe shorter times for the filing and service of papers than the times specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.” Cal. Rules of Court 5.94(a).

“A motion to advance or specially set a trial date can be made ex parte. Otherwise, the regular 16-court-day notice requirement applies.” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, § 12:271.

Useful Resources for Motion for Order Shortening Time to Serve A Motion

Recent Rulings on Motion for Order Shortening Time to Serve A Motion

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Provided that the City will stipulate to a preliminary injunction with respect to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6374 relating to immediate warrantless access to the short-term rental (STR) units, the Court DENIES the application for a preliminary injunction in all other respects, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

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

With respect to the first question, the Court concludes that Section 13.2(f) does not preclude SARVS from attempting to obtain compensation for any alleged loss of goodwill. Notably, nowhere in that section is there any reference to goodwill or any statement to the effect that any potential item of compensation not explicitly referenced therein is considered waived.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

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. Rulings on Evidentiary Objections The Court DECLINES to rule on all of the parties’ objections because "the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion." (CCP § 437c(q).).

  • 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

LONG-HIM TANG, ET AL. VS PATRICIA PONCE DE LEON

When a defendant has been served and no answer, demurrer, or certain motion has been filed within the time specified in the summons, the clerk shall enter the default of the defendant. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).) The court shall then render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, not exceeding the amount stated in the statement of damages, as appears by the evidence to be just. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TRANSPORT FUNDING, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ERK LOGISTICS 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 March 24, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: Plaintiff’s Judicial Council form CIV-100 lists $60,991.64 as the “[d]emand of complaint” against both ERK and Ho. The proposed default judgment (Judicial Council form JUD-100) likewise lists damages as $60,991.64, against both ERK and Ho.

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

I.L.W.U. CREDIT UNION VS JOHN SUA, ET AL.

The following defects are noted: Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with a summary of the case, as per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(1). It is unclear to the court how Defendants could have defaulted under the terms of the Agreement by allegedly failing to make an installment payment due on or about April 22, 2020 and all subsequent installments when the Agreement specifies that the last payment therein was due on November 23, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2021

STEPHANIE GREENE VS LINDA PENA ET AL

Therefore, Defendants were personally served again on October 1, 2017 with the file-stamped summons and Complaint. On December 13, 2017, Plaintiff again requested the entry of default against Defendants but was denied because she failed to serve a statement of damages on them. On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to name the Estate of Linda Pena as Doe 1. The summons, complaint, and amendment to the complaint were served on Michael R. Pena on May 11, 218.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for January 14, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED; however, attorney’s fees are reduced to $877.31 (i.e., $690 + 3% of $6,243.54) pursuant to Local Rule 3.214, based on the $15,567.39 balance amount. ANALYSIS Yes (12/5/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

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

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for February 11, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

EARL BULL ET AL VS SUPERIOR MOBILITY INC ET AL

Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Compelling Cross-Complainant Pride Mobility Products Corporation's Further Responses to Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Superior Mobility, Inc.'s Special Interrogatories, (Set 3) scheduled for 02/11/2021 are continued to 02/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RICHARD WALTERS, ET AL. VS VASSAL BENFORD, ET AL.

TENTATIVE RULING 2/10/2021 WALTERS V BENFORD/LC084069 MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT The motion is DENIED. A wife cannot be added to a judgment rendered against her husband in an action in which she was not named and had no opportunity to defend.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for January 14, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED; however, attorney’s fees are reduced to $877.31 (i.e., $690 + 3% of $6,243.54) pursuant to Local Rule 3.214, based on the $15,567.39 balance amount. ANALYSIS Yes (12/5/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2021

WITHY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS EUN M. LIN, INC., ET AL.

.: 20STCV42099 ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; MOTION TO STRIKE Date: February 5, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearings on the: (1) the demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint; and (2) the motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint, filed by Defendants Eun M. Lin, Inc. and Anthony Lin, scheduled for 2/5/2021 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 2/11/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. RX UNLIMITED,LLC ETAL

.: BC670620 ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY CIVIL DISCOVERY AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS Date: February 5, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearing on the motion for an order staying civil discovery[1], filed by Defendants Rx Unlimited LLC, Brian Goldstein, and Clifton Braddy, scheduled for 2/5/2021 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 2/17/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE VS YOUNG ACTORS CAMP, ET AL.

The “Account Statement Commission Calculation” lists only “Inspire Me, dba Young” and the invoice dated 8/1/16 attached thereto is directed to “Inspire Me Inc – DBA Young Actors Camp.” While the latter document is directed to “ATTN: Nichelle Rodriguez,” this reference is insufficient to establish individual liability against N. Rodriguez.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

V. L., ET AL. VS EVAN CARTER, ET AL.

Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID ANGUIANO VS CONNECT STAFFING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

.: 20STCV21657 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DISMISSAL Date: February 4, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff David Anguiano The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a motion (the “Motion”) for an order vacating the order of dismissal that was entered in this case on November 3, 2020[1]. The Motion is unopposed, and the Court therefore GRANTS the Motion under Sexton v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOSE SALAZAR VS JOSE L MUNIZ

TENTATIVE RULING MSJ BY PLAINTIFF JOSE SALAZAR 19VECV01453 HEARING DATE 2/4/2021 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. THERE ARE TRIABLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIER OF FACT WHICH PREVENT ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. IT IS NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO TIMELY OPPOSITION FILED TO THE MSJ. REGARDLESS OF THE ABSENCE OF AN OPPOSITION, THE MOTION IS NOT “AUTOMATICALLY” GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

JOSE SALAZAR VS JOSE L MUNIZ

TENTATIVE RULING MSJ BY PLAINTIFF JOSE SALAZAR 19VECV01453 HEARING DATE 2/4/2021 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. THERE ARE TRIABLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIER OF FACT WHICH PREVENT ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. FIRST, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO TIMELY OPPOSITION FILED TO THE MSJ. REGARDLESS OF THE ABSENCE OF AN OPPOSITION, THE MOTION IS NOT “AUTOMATICALLY” GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

V. L., ET AL. VS EVAN CARTER, ET AL.

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RE: PET’N FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION ON WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING

FILED ON 09/04/20 BY CYNTHIA AKAGBOSU PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required CYNTHIA AKAGBOSU FIDELIS AKAGBOSU PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to notice ALFONSO LOFTY MURRIE GERALD M TOMASSIAN RUBY LEE MURRIE

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa 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 load this page.