Untimely Filed Motions in California

The 45-day time limit is mandatory and “jurisdictional” (court has no authority to grant a late motion). (Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (Mullikin Med. Ctr.) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 (late-filed motion to compel must be denied where objection raised at hearing even if omitted in opposition papers).) Here, Defendant served responses by mail on November 14, 2019. (Jung Dec., Ex. D.) Thus, accounting for the extra five days for service by mail, the deadline to file a motion to compel was January 3, 2020.

The court exercises its discretion per CCP 425.16(f) not to permit this late filed motion. "In determining whether to permit a late motion, the most important consideration is whether the filing advances the anti-SLAPP statute's purpose of examining the merits of covered lawsuits in the early stages of the proceedings." (San Diegans for Open Government v. Har Construction, Inc. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 611, 624.)

Courts refuse to consider a late filed anti-SLAPP motion on the merits. The proper procedure is to seek leave to file the late motion articulating extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing. Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg, 166 Cal.App.4th 772, 775 (2008). Defendant did not do that. Instead, she filed the motion 17.5 months after service of the complaint and a year after filing her answer.

Although Plaintiff filed her anti-SLAPP motion approximately two weeks after the statutory deadline, it is within the court's discretion to consider and TO grant a late filed anti-SLAPP motion on the merits even if the defendant failed to request leave of court to file an untimely motion. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ? 425.16(f); Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kasslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.) Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, as it pertains to the first cause of action is granted.

The court has discretion to consider a late-filed anti-SLAPP motion even if the defendant failed to seek leave of court to file it. (Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.) But the court is not required to do so: such a requirement would negate the 60–day deadline. (Id. at 682; see also Hewlett-Packard Company v.

The court has discretion to consider a late-filed anti-SLAPP motion even if the defendant failed to seek leave of court to file it. (Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.) But the court is not required to do so: such a requirement would negate the 60–day deadline. (Id. at 682; see also Hewlett-Packard Company v.

In determining whether to permit a late motion, the most important consideration is whether the filing advances the anti-SLAPP statute's purpose of examining the merits of covered lawsuits in the early stages of the proceedings. Other relevant factors include the length of the delay, the reasons for the late filing, and any undue prejudice to the plaintiff. San Diegans for Open Government v. Har Construction, Inc. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 611, 624.

Plaintiff opposes the consideration of the untimely motion but does not claim that he will be prejudiced in any manner. The motion was filed at an early stage of the litigation and without substantial delay. Without any prejudice to Plaintiff, the Court will exercise its discretion and consider the late filed motion. The request is GRANTED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be executed.

Plaintiff opposes the consideration of the untimely motion but does not claim that he will be prejudiced in any manner. The motion was filed at an early stage of the litigation and without substantial delay. Without any prejudice to Plaintiff, the Court will exercise its discretion and consider the late filed motion. The request is GRANTED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be executed.

Plaintiff opposes the consideration of the untimely motion but does not claim that he will be prejudiced in any manner. The motion was filed at an early stage of the litigation and without substantial delay. Without any prejudice to Plaintiff, the Court will exercise its discretion and consider the late filed motion. The request is GRANTED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be executed.

Plaintiff opposes the consideration of the untimely motion but does not claim that he will be prejudiced in any manner. The motion was filed at an early stage of the litigation and without substantial delay. Without any prejudice to Plaintiff, the Court will exercise its discretion and consider the late filed motion. The request is GRANTED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be executed.

Plaintiff opposes the consideration of the untimely motion but does not claim that he will be prejudiced in any manner. The motion was filed at an early stage of the litigation and without substantial delay. Without any prejudice to Plaintiff, the Court will exercise its discretion and consider the late filed motion. The request is GRANTED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be executed.

Requiring the Court to entertain such a late-filed anti-SLAPP motion would negate the 60day deadline. Chitsazzadeh, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at 682. Although it is not required to do so, the Court has proceeded to consider the merits of Chaos untimely motion. With regard to the question of whether Chao is being sued for engaging in protected activity, the Courts analysis begins with the allegations of the Complaint. Pinnacles Complaint alleges at ¶3 that Chao is a California Real Estate Broker.

See also Weil and Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, The Rutter Group, § 8:1491: “The 45-day time limit is mandatory and ‘jurisdictional’ (court has no authority to grant a late motion). . . .” Although the foregoing authorities were decided under the prior versions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the rationale is equally applicable to the current CCP.

In determining whether to permit a late motion, the most important consideration is whether the filing advances the anti-SLAPP statute’s purpose of examining the merits of covered lawsuits in the early stages of the proceedings. [Citations.] Other relevant factors include the length of the delay, the reasons for the late filing, and any undue prejudice to the plaintiff. [Citation.] (San Diegans, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 624.)

This continuance is necessitated by the late filed opposition papers. The Court has read and considered the "Declaration of Bernard F. King III in Response to Defendants' Objection and Motion to Strike Late-Filed Opposition," and finds good cause for the late filed opposition papers. As a result, the Motion to strike the late filed opposition is DENIED.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the opposition to the motion was slightly late-filed. Plaintiffs submit an acknowledgement of the late-filed opposition, and explain why the document was late-filed. The Court will accept the late opposition, as the Court deems prejudice from the slightly late opposition to be minimal. Any reply brief late-filed in advance of the hearing will also be considered by the Court.

The Court notes that if it were to find good cause or some other sufficient applicable reason for the late-filed papers, then it will provide the moving party a continuance to address the substance of the late filed opposition. (G.E. Hetrick & Assoc., Inc. v. Summit Construction & Maintenance Co. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 318, 325 & fn.4.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, subdivision (a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary.

Late-filed opposition and late-filed reply are stricken. = (501/LKS) LATE TENTATIVE

Continued to 10-4-19 at 8:30 a.m., Department 5 to allow consideration of the late filed Opposition. Court exercises its discretion to consideration of the late filed opposition. (Kapitanski v. Von’s Grocery Store (1983) 146 Cal. App. 3d 29, 32.) Reply, if any, by Referee, to be filed five court days before the hearing. No further briefs will be accepted.

The court accepts his declaration of error and considers the late filed declaration (discussed below). The, therefore, court did take into consideration Matthew Joys late filed declaration, and it is discussed in the courts ruling of 3/10/2023. The motion for reconsideration erroneously states that the missing Declarations, caused by counsels excusable mistake, resulted in the Court not considering the evidence when rendering its ruling.

The Court will consider the late filed opposition and accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is continued to September 25, 2020 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 10C. Defendants may file a Reply to address the late filed Opposition and if Defendants elect to do so, the Reply must be filed no later than September 11, 2020.

DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN BANK's DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT Continued to April 20, 2017 for Plaintiff to comply with SFLR 2.7B and provide courtesy copy of late-filed opposition no later than March 30, 2017 with a cover letter reflecting new hearing date. The Court will consider late-filed opposition. Defendant to file a substantive reply five court days before the new hearing date. = (501/AJR)

The Court will exercise its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s late-filed opposition; Plaintiff is not permitted to file any additional opposition. The Court grants moving parties leave to file a reply to the late-filed opposition, which optional reply may be served and filed on or before February 28, 2023.

Late-filed opposition is stricken. The Court also notes that Plaintiff failed to file a proof of service for its late-filed opposition. = (501/REQ)

Demurer to the first cause of action is sustained with leave to amend to attach 2011 contract as requested in the late-filed opposition. Demurer to the second cause of action is sustained without leave to amend. Cross-Complainant's late-filed opposition does not address arguments raised in the demurrer as to this cause of action. (501/REQ)

MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING FILING A REPLY TO DEFENDANTS LATE-FILED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (CCP § 1005; CRC rules 2.111(4), 3.1113, 3.1115) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Haroun Bacchus Motion for Order Permitting Filing a Reply to Defendants Late-Filed Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for New Trial is DENIED.

This matter is continued on the Court’s own motion to 2/9/24 at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related motion for summary adjudication and so that the Court can consider the late-filed opposition and late-filed reply. As Defendant contends that it was prejudiced by the late filing of the opposition and was unable to file a complete reply, Defendant may file an amended reply or supplemental reply no later than five court days before the continued hearing date.

The court exercises its discretion to consider the late filed opposition to plaintiff’s motion. It appears plaintiff did not give proper service of the notice of motion and supporting papers. The continued hearing will give defendant the time needed to file opposition on the merits. It is strongly urged that the parties meet and confer to schedule the deposition of defendant’s PMK so that intervention of the court is not required. The late filed reply does not change the court’s tentative.

The Court, in its discretion, considers plaintiff Ranganathan Madhavan’s late-filed opposition and defendants Asli Mete and Kevin Baker’s late-filed reply. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1300(d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202; see also Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 262 [stating that “a trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers.”]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

The court has considered the late filed opposition by plaintiff. The court has discretion whether to consider late filed papers and in the future may not consider late filed papers. Request for Judicial Notice is denied. The filing with the Nevada Secretary of State indicates a plan of merger between Next Level Merge Sub and Next Level Security Systems, Inc. signed in August 2016.

The court considered Plaintiff's late filed opposition. However, the court may not consider late filed papers in the future.

By reason of the court’s exercise of its discretion, the Motion to Accept Late-Filed Opposition currently set for 5/19/22 is vacated. On the court’s own motion, both Order to Show Causes set for 4/11/22 are discharged.

By reason of the court’s exercise of its discretion, the Motion to Accept Late-Filed Opposition currently set for 5/19/22 is vacated. On the court’s own motion, both Order to Show Causes set for 4/11/22 are discharged.

By reason of the court’s exercise of its discretion, the Motion to Accept Late-Filed Opposition currently set for 5/19/22 is vacated. On the court’s own motion, both Order to Show Causes set for 4/11/22 are discharged.

Defendant's objection to Plaintiffs' late filed opposition is sustained. The court declined to consider the late filed opposition. The court defers ruling on the issue of sanctions pending Plaintiffs' compliance with the above rulings.

The Court, in its discretion, declines to consider cross-complainant Casey Boosalis late-filed opposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1300(d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202; see also Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 262 [stating that “a trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers.”].)

At the outset, the court notes it considered both Plaintiffs' late-filed opposition papers and Defendant's late-filed reply papers. Plaintiffs' opposition refers to a "Verified Second Amended Complaint." (Opp. at p. 4:1.) However, the Second Amended Complaint does not contain a verification. Plaintiffs' opposition also refers repeatedly to a "Third Amended Complaint" which Plaintiffs indicate has already been filed. (Id. at pp. 2:19, 3:7-8, 3:13, 4:19, 5:7).

Pannu, M.D.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint Defendants have objected to the Opposition filed by Plaintiffs on the grounds that the opposition is untimely and that Defendants were prejudice by the late filed opposition.

An oversize brief is treated the same as a late-filed brief. ( Cal. R. Ct. 3.1113(g) .) The Court has discretion to disregard late-filed papers , and therefore also has discretion to disregard oversize briefs. ( See Cal. R. Ct. 3.1300(d) .) Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff s motion for leave to file second amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 26 , 2023 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

The court is in receipt of Plaintiffs LATE-filed opposition, and Plaintiffs counsels declaration of inadvertence regarding his calendaring error. The court will exercise its discretion to consider the late-filed papers. The court will grant Enterprise Rent-A-Cars request for a continuance to allow it to file Replies. The hearings on the motion to strike and demurrer are CONTINUED to Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 1:30 pm in Dept. C. Replies are due per Code.

Motion to Seek Relief from Late Filed Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Western Overseas Corporation; Plaintiff Western Overseas Corporation’s motion for relief from late-filed Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. The instant motion was filed on July 2, 2018, within a reasonable time, not exceeding six months after Defendant first raised the procedural time limit as an objection in its opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, i.e., on May 29, 2018.

The Probate Court is the court of exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether Plaintiff was permitted to accept his own late filed creditor’s claim. The Probate Court made such determination and permitted the late filed claim in the probate case.

The Plaintiff late filed their Case Management Statement persuant to Local Rule 11.055.

It is within the Court’s discretion whether to strike a late-filed answer. (Imagistics Intern., Inc. v. Department of General Services (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 581, 588.) A late-filed answer is an irregularity, not an absolute nullity, and the Court may allow the late filing in its discretion. (A & B Metal Products v. MacArthur Properties, Inc. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 642, 647; Bank of Haywards v. Kenyon (1917) 32 Cal.App. 635.) The law favors a trial on the merits. (Iott v.

If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate.” (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d).) In determining whether to consider a late filed paper, a trial court must “properly exercise its discretion by considering all factors relevant to granting relief under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 473.” (Kapitanski v. Von’s Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 30.)

The Court has discretion to consider and grant a late-filed motion on the merits even if defendant failed to request leave of court to file an untimely motion. Weil & Brown, §7:955.6, citing Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.

The Court has discretion to consider and grant a late-filed motion on the merits even if defendant failed to request leave of court to file an untimely motion. Weil & Brown, §7:955.6, citing Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.

The Court has discretion to consider and grant a late-filed motion on the merits even if defendant failed to request leave of court to file an untimely motion. Weil & Brown, §7:955.6, citing Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.

The Court has discretion to consider and grant a late-filed motion on the merits even if defendant failed to request leave of court to file an untimely motion. Weil & Brown, §7:955.6, citing Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.

The Court has discretion to consider and grant a late-filed motion on the merits even if defendant failed to request leave of court to file an untimely motion. Weil & Brown, §7:955.6, citing Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.

The Court has discretion to consider and grant a late-filed motion on the merits even if defendant failed to request leave of court to file an untimely motion. Weil & Brown, §7:955.6, citing Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.

The Court has discretion to consider and grant a late-filed motion on the merits even if defendant failed to request leave of court to file an untimely motion. Weil & Brown, §7:955.6, citing Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 684.

The Court accepts the late filed opposition, but continues this motion so that Plaintiff will have adequate time to file a reply brief. The reply brief must be filed and electronically served by Tuesday March 28th at 2:00 p.m. Event ID: 2931222 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 1

Second, there are numerous issues as to the Motion itself, including a lack of proof of service, lack of Notice, lack of Memorandum of Points and Authorities, a late-filed supporting declaration, and no statute, case law, or evidence supporting the Motion. As noted by the Ransfords, although Plaintiff is in pro per, she is still required to abide by the pleading requirements set forth in the California Rules of Court and Code of Civil Procedure. For the reasons above, the Motion is denied.

The Court will consider Plaintiffs late-filed opposition and give Defendants an opportunity to respond.

While the Court has discretion to consider late filed papers, the Court finds it would be prejudicial to Defendant Flowers to consider these late filed papers, particularly when the matter has been pending for over four years. Moreover, what was said in the radio broadcast is not disputed, and it is clear Dr. Flowers did not publicly disclose private facts about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement between Dr.

While the Court has discretion to consider late filed papers, the Court finds it would be prejudicial to Defendant Flowers to consider these late filed papers, particularly when the matter has been pending for over four years. Moreover, what was said in the radio broadcast is not disputed, and it is clear Dr. Flowers did not publicly disclose private facts about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement between Dr.

While the Court has discretion to consider late filed papers, the Court finds it would be prejudicial to Defendant Flowers to consider these late filed papers, particularly when the matter has been pending for over four years. Moreover, what was said in the radio broadcast is not disputed, and it is clear Dr. Flowers did not publicly disclose private facts about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement between Dr.

While the Court has discretion to consider late filed papers, the Court finds it would be prejudicial to Defendant Flowers to consider these late filed papers, particularly when the matter has been pending for over four years. Moreover, what was said in the radio broadcast is not disputed, and it is clear Dr. Flowers did not publicly disclose private facts about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement between Dr.

While the Court has discretion to consider late filed papers, the Court finds it would be prejudicial to Defendant Flowers to consider these late filed papers, particularly when the matter has been pending for over four years. Moreover, what was said in the radio broadcast is not disputed, and it is clear Dr. Flowers did not publicly disclose private facts about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement between Dr.

While the Court has discretion to consider late filed papers, the Court finds it would be prejudicial to Defendant Flowers to consider these late filed papers, particularly when the matter has been pending for over four years. Moreover, what was said in the radio broadcast is not disputed, and it is clear Dr. Flowers did not publicly disclose private facts about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement between Dr.

While the Court has discretion to consider late filed papers, the Court finds it would be prejudicial to Defendant Flowers to consider these late filed papers, particularly when the matter has been pending for over four years. Moreover, what was said in the radio broadcast is not disputed, and it is clear Dr. Flowers did not publicly disclose private facts about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement between Dr.

While the Court has discretion to consider late filed papers, the Court finds it would be prejudicial to Defendant Flowers to consider these late filed papers, particularly when the matter has been pending for over four years. Moreover, what was said in the radio broadcast is not disputed, and it is clear Dr. Flowers did not publicly disclose private facts about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement between Dr.

While the Court has discretion to consider late filed papers, the Court finds it would be prejudicial to Defendant Flowers to consider these late filed papers, particularly when the matter has been pending for over four years. Moreover, what was said in the radio broadcast is not disputed, and it is clear Dr. Flowers did not publicly disclose private facts about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement between Dr.

While the Court has discretion to consider late filed papers, the Court finds it would be prejudicial to Defendant Flowers to consider these late filed papers, particularly when the matter has been pending for over four years. Moreover, what was said in the radio broadcast is not disputed, and it is clear Dr. Flowers did not publicly disclose private facts about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has no evidence of an agreement between Dr.

The motion is an improper and untimely motion for reconsideration that fails to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure 1008.

In the request, Plaintiff never explained the failure to raise these issues timely before its late-filed opposition to the motion for summary judgment or even as part of the late-filed opposition. On July 18, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs ex parte request for a continuance and adopted its tentative ruling as the final decision on the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed his motions for reconsideration and to set aside judgment on July 29, 2022.

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Strike Defendants' Untimely Motion To Quash Service DENY-MOVING PARTY SEEKS PRE-EMPTIVE RULING, SHOULD RAISE IN REPLY MOTION TO QUASH.(302/REQ/??)

This Court normally does the former, but the discrepancy is noted since it supports the eventual outcome here.Defendant through counsel in a late filed Opposition (due May 21 but filed May 29 and presumably served that date)states without a declaration that the discovery was not received when originally sent.

However, in the interest of addressing this matter substantively, the court is inclined to consider Plaintiff’s late filed opposition. The Court hereby continues this matter to enable Defendants’ Counsel file their reply to said opposition. Accordingly, this matter is continued to Wednesday, August 30th, 2023, at 8:30 am in Department 24. Defendant’s reply shall be filed no later than Tuesday, August 1st, 2023.

The Court will not consider the late filed evidence because the defendants did not have an opportunity to respond to it.

Isn’t this motion an untimely motion for reconsideration of the court’s February 9, 2018 and March 23, 2018 orders?

This is an improper and untimely motion for reconsideration of this court’s previous order of September 18, 2014 wherein the court denied Defendant’s motion to vacate the default and default judgment.

The court finds that there is no showing of prejudice to any party from the late-filed motion or the late-filed Opposition, and the court elects to hear the late-filed motion for new trial and to consider the late-filed Opposition. An unsigned hearsay declaration of Juror Candace Evans was submitted by Plaintiff. The court declines to consider it. Motion Granted. Plaintiff shall serve notice of this ruling. Future Hearings: None

Conclusion Accordingly, Plaintiffs untimely Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal is DENIED. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

The instant motion is an improper and untimely motion to reconsider this court’s previous denials of Defendant’s Motions to Set Aside Default which have been heard and denied on May 31, 2018 and August 3, 2018.

Improper and untimely motion for change of venue. =(302/CWW)

Lastly, Defendants have not provided any excuse for the late-filed motion, therefore, relief under CCP § 473(b) is not available.

The Court, in its discretion, considers Shazia Jabeen, Mohsan Iqbal, and Ahsan Iqbal’s late-filed opposition. (Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 262 [stating that “a trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers.”]; Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202; see also Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1300(d).)

Late filed papers will not be considered by the Court and failure by Defendant So Hyung Kim to file a properly executed Proof of Service for a second time will result in the motion being denied outright. Court Clerk is to give notice.

The Court will not consider a late-filed opposition. The hearing on this Motion is CONTINUED to August 1, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 94 so Plaintiff can file such opposition. Moving party to give notice.

A trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers. ( Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Ass’n v. Hazelbaker (2016) Cal.App.5th 252, 262.) The Court exercises its discretion to refuse to consider this late filed motion on the merits.

The court, in its discretion, has considered the late filed reply and sur-reply. Counsel should be familiar with all procedural rules and abide by them. In the future, the court will not consider late filed papers. At a continued Case Management Conference on August 24, 2018, this court dismissed the case, with prejudice, after plaintiffs' counsel failed to appear for several hearings.

Von’s Grocery Co., Inc. (1983) 146 CA3d 29, 32-33—court may summarily reject late-filed papers under local rules, but if it considers them at all, it must apply CCP § 473 standards, and it is an abuse of discretion to refuse relief if “excusable neglect” shown]. Further, there is no proof of service (“POS”) showing that the late-filed Opposition was ever served. If filed separately, a POS for an opposition must be filed at least 5 court days before the hearing. [CRC 3.1300(c).]

Improper, untimely, motion for reconsideration. CCP section 1008. =(302/CWW/JW)

Tentative Ruling issued by Amber Rodriguez, Judge Pro Tem presiding on 7/27/17: The court has received a late-filed Supplement which significantly increases the amount of reimbursement requested by Evelyn Kramer. The court had intended to grant the Petition as originally prayed, but this late-filed Supplement introduces a host of new issues that must be addressed before the Petition can be granted.

This Court normally does the former, but the discrepancy is noted.Defendant through counsel in a late filed Opposition (due May 21 but filed and served May 29) states that the discovery was not received because it was sent to defendant's former office location.

The court has considered the late filed opposition, but advises counsel that it expects counsel to abide by all procedural rules, including filing times, and may not in the future consider late filed papers. Defendant served verified responses to plaintiff's Request for Production (Set One) [RFP] on August 24, 2018. Plaintiff deemed the responses and document production inadequate and began the meet and confer process with defendant.

The Court, in its discretion, declines to consider defendants Ply Gen Pacific Windows Corporation and Certainteed Corporation’s late-filed joinder to the oppositions filed with the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1300(d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202; see also Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v.

The Court, in its discretion, considers plaintiff Veronica Adams’ late-filed opposition. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1300(d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202; see also Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 262 [stating that “a trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers”].)

Defendant’s objections to the late filed opposition are OVERRULED. This Court continuance of the hearing has cured any prejudice arising from the late filed opposition.

motion to compel further responses.

Motion to Seek Relief from Late Filed Motion for Attorney Fees Continued to 10/01/2018

Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff Cecelia Kleiner stipulated in writing to the Court’s consideration of this untimely motion, as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.060.) Nor has Defendant sought leave to bring an untimely motion regarding discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) Moreover, Defendant has been dilatory in pursuing this discovery. This case was filed on December 1, 2015, meaning that discovery has been ongoing for approximately four years.

Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff Cecelia Kleiner stipulated in writing to the Court’s consideration of this untimely motion, as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.060.) Nor has Defendant sought leave to bring an untimely motion regarding discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) Moreover, Defendant has been dilatory in pursuing this discovery. This case was filed on December 1, 2015, meaning that discovery has been ongoing for approximately four years.

Conclusion Accordingly, Plaintiffs untimely Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal is DENIED. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

This does appear to be an untimely Motion for Reconsideration, but Judge Bermudez probably needs to hear it & he will not be back until next week. The court plans to re-set the matter for hearing when he will be back, unless both sides will agree to having Judge Barry hear it.