California Rules of Court|Standard 2.2. Trial court case disposition time goals

                                                

<< Previous Rule
[ Back to Title Index ]
     |       Printer-friendly version of this page

2024 California Rules of Court

Standard 2.2. Trial court case disposition time goals

(a) Trial Court Delay Reduction Act

The recommended goals for case disposition time in the trial courts in this standard are adopted under Government Code sections 68603 and 68620.

(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective July 1, 1987; relettered effective January 1, 1989; previously amended effective January 1, 2004.)

(b) Statement of purpose

The recommended time goals are intended to guide the trial courts in applying the policies and principles of standard 2.1. They are administrative, justice-oriented guidelines to be used in the management of the courts. They are intended to improve the administration of justice by encouraging prompt disposition of all matters coming before the courts. The goals apply to all cases filed and are not meant to create deadlines for individual cases. Through its case management practices, a court may achieve or exceed the goals stated in this standard for the overall disposition of cases. The goals should be applied in a fair, practical, and flexible manner. They are not to be used as the basis for sanctions against any court or judge.

(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective July 1, 1987, as (1); relettered effective January 1, 1989; previously amended effective January 1, 2004.)

(c) Definition

The definition of "general civil case" in rule 1.6 applies to this section. It includes both unlimited and limited civil cases.

(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1, 2004.)

(d) Civil cases-processing time goals

The goal of each trial court should be to process general civil cases so that all cases are disposed of within two years of filing.

(Subd (d) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2004; adopted effective July 1, 1987, as (2); previously amended effective July 1, 1988; amended and relettered as subd (c) effective January 1, 1989.)

(e) Civil cases-rate of disposition

Each trial court should dispose of at least as many civil cases as are filed each year and, if necessary to meet the case-processing goal in (d), dispose of more cases than are filed. As the court disposes of inactive cases, it should identify active cases that may require judicial attention.

(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective July 1, 1987, as (3); previously amended effective July 1, 1988; previously amended and relettered as subd (d) effective January 1, 1989, and as subd (e) effective January 1, 2004.)

(f) General civil cases-case disposition time goals

The goal of each trial court should be to manage general civil cases, except those exempt under (g), so that they meet the following case disposition time goals:

(1)  Unlimited civil cases:

The goal of each trial court should be to manage unlimited civil cases from filing so that:

(A)  75 percent are disposed of within 12 months;

(B)  85 percent are disposed of within 18 months; and

(C)  100 percent are disposed of within 24 months.

(2)  em] Limited civil cases:

The goal of each trial court should be to manage limited civil cases from filing so that:

(A)  90 percent are disposed of within 12 months;

(B)  98 percent are disposed of within 18 months; and

(C)  100 percent are disposed of within 24 months.

(3)  Individualized case management

The goals in (1) and (2) are guidelines for the court's disposition of all unlimited and limited civil cases filed in that court. In managing individual civil cases, the court must consider each case on its merits. To enable the fair and efficient resolution of civil cases, each case should be set for trial as soon as appropriate for that individual case consistent with rule 3.729.

(Subd (f) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (g) effective July 1, 1987; relettered as subd (h) effective January 1, 1989; amended effective July 1, 1991; previously amended and relettered as subd (f) effective January 1, 2004.)

(g) Exceptional civil cases

A general civil case that meets the criteria in rules 3.715 and 3.400 and that involves exceptional circumstances or will require continuing review is exempt from the time goals in (d) and (f). Every exceptional case should be monitored to ensure its timely disposition consistent with the exceptional circumstances, with the goal of disposing of the case within three years.

(Subd (g) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1, 2004.)

(h) Small claims cases

The goals for small claims cases are:

(1) 90 percent disposed of within 75 days after filing; and

(2) 100 percent disposed of within 95 days after filing.

(Subd (h) adopted effective January 1, 2004.)

(i) Unlawful detainer cases

The goals for unlawful detainer cases are:

(1) 90 percent disposed of within 30 days after filing; and

(2) 100 percent disposed of within 45 days after filing.

(Subd (i) adopted effective January 1, 2004.)

(j) Felony cases-processing time goals

Except for capital cases, all felony cases disposed of should have a total elapsed processing time of no more than one year from the defendant's first arraignment to disposition.

(Subd (j) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1, 2004.)

(k) Misdemeanor cases

The goals for misdemeanor cases are:

(1)  90 percent disposed of within 30 days after the defendant's first arraignment on the complaint;

(2)  98 percent disposed of within 90 days after the defendant's first arraignment on the complaint; and

(3)  100 percent disposed of within 120 days after the defendant's first arraignment on the complaint.

(Subd (k) adopted effective January 1, 2004.)

(l) Felony preliminary examinations

The goal for felony cases at the time of the preliminary examination (excluding murder cases in which the prosecution seeks the death penalty) should be disposition by dismissal, by interim disposition by certified plea of guilty, or by finding of probable cause, so that:

(1)  90 percent of cases are disposed of within 30 days after the defendant's first arraignment on the complaint;

(2)  98 percent of cases are disposed of within 45 days after the defendant's first arraignment on the complaint; and

(3)  100 percent of cases are disposed of within 90 days after the defendant's first arraignment on the complaint.

(Subd (l) adopted effective January 1, 2004.)

(m) Cases removed from court's control excluded from computation of time

If a case is removed from the court's control, the period of time until the case is restored to court control should be excluded from the case disposition time goals. The matters that remove a case from the court's control for the purposes of this section include:

(1)  Civil cases:

(A)  The filing of a notice of conditional settlement under rule 3.1385;

(B)  An automatic stay resulting from the filing of an action in a federal bankruptcy court;

(C)  The removal of the case to federal court;

(D)  An order of a federal court or higher state court staying the case;

(E)  An order staying the case based on proceedings in a court of equal standing in another jurisdiction;

(F)  The pendency of contractual arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4;

(G)  The pendency of attorney fee arbitration under Business and Professions Code section 6201;

(H)  A stay by the reporting court for active military duty or incarceration; and

(I)  For 180 days, the exemption for uninsured motorist cases under rule 3.712(b).

(2)  Felony or misdemeanor cases:

(A)  Issuance of warrant;

(B)  Imposition of a civil assessment under Penal Code section 1214.1;

(C)  Pendency of completion of diversion under Penal Code section 1000 et seq.;

(D)  Evaluation of mental competence under Penal Code section 1368;

(E)  Evaluation as a narcotics addict under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 3050 and 3051;

(F)  90-day diagnostic and treatment program under Penal Code section 1203.3;

(G)  90-day evaluation period for a juvenile under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707.2;

(H)  Stay by a higher court or by a federal court for proceedings in another jurisdiction;

(I)  Stay by the reporting court for active military duty or incarceration; and

(J)  Time granted by the court to secure counsel if the defendant is not represented at the first appearance.

(Subd (m) relettered and amended effective January 1, 2024; adopted as subd (n) effective January 1, 2004; previously amended effective January 1, 2007)

(n) Problems

A court that finds its ability to comply with these goals impeded by a rule of court or statute should notify the Judicial Council.

(Subd (n) relettered and amended effective January 1, 2024; adopted as subd (o) effective January 1, 2004.)

Standard 2.2 amended effective January 1, 2024; adopted as sec. 2.1 effective July 1, 1987; previously amended effective January 1, 1988, July 1, 1988, January 1, 1989, January 1, 1990, July 1, 1991, and January 1, 2004; previously amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007.

View Latest Rulings

There is no evidence that the plaintiff has complied with section 2.2, paragraph c. 3. The plaintiff has failed to provide a proposed judgment. The request for attorney’s fees is denied. Section 2.8, paragraph f, provides for attorney’s fees to the party prevailing in “an action brought to enforce this Settlement Agreement . . . .” The plaintiff has not filed such an action.

  • Name

    BRACKEN VS GROZA

  • Case No.

    RIC1604236

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2017

The Court will enter judgment in favor of Turner against the "Kairos Parties" (i.e., Kairos Capital Group LLC, Hawkeye Safety LLC, and Steven Marks) in the amount of $25,000, representing the amount of the settlement amount provided in Section 2.2 of the Settlement Agreement that remains unpaid. The Kairos Parties" (including Steven Marks) are jointly and severally liable for the remaining $25,000 payment, as they are jointly and severally liable for all payments under Section 2.2.

  • Name

    KAIROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC VS TURNER RISK CONSULTING INC

  • Case No.

    RG19031967

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2021

  • Judge

    Noël Wise

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Defendant Jasmine Marie Acosta (ACOSTA) fails in her burden because even if section 2.3 of the NDA is void/unenforceable, the entire NDA is not demonstrated to be void/unenforceable, and section 2.3 of the NDA would only be void associated with general solicitation but not in connection with also violating the NDA’s section 2.2 [UF #2 and cited evidence: ACOSTA’s Decl. and NDA] Section 2.2 of the NDA provides, “Employee acknowledges and agrees that the sale or

  • Name

    JASMINE MARIE ACOSTA, ET AL SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

  • Case No.

    CIVDS200764

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2023

  • County

    San Bernardino County, CA

Although not cited to directly by Plaintiff, a review of the User Agreement shows that Plaintiff relies on section 2.2. Pursuant to this section: 2.2.

  • Name

    SCIARRINO VS NEUTRON HOLDINGS INC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00057314-CU-PL-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

(See Amended Consent Judgment § 3.3) The term “Phthalate Free” is defined in section 2.2 of the Amended Consent Judgment to mean that each vinyl component of each Covered Product contains less than or equal to 1,000 pp of DEHP, DBP, DINP, DIDP, DnHP, or BBP. (/d. at § 2.2.) The letter abbreviations each represent a different phthalate.

  • Case No.

    CV2101861

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

View More Rulings

View Latest Dockets

91 Files
Filed

Nov 21, 2017

Status

Dismissal

Judge

Hon. John L. Grandsaert Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for John L. Grandsaert

Court

San Mateo County

County

San Mateo County, CA

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

Filed

Jan 24, 2019

Status

Judgment (Other)

Court

Superior

County

San Francisco County, CA

Category

PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION WITH CHILDREN

Practice Area

Family

Matter Type

Divorce,Separation

Filed

Sep 22, 2011

Status

Dismissal

Judge

Hon. Kenneth R. Freeman Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Kenneth R. Freeman

Court

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Construction Defect (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Torts

Matter Type

Construction

Filed

May 03, 2012

Status

Dismissal

Court

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

13 Files
Filed

Sep 05, 2012

Status

Dismissal

Judge

Hon. Joseph E. Bergeron Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Joseph E. Bergeron

Court

San Mateo County

County

San Mateo County, CA

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

View More Dockets

View Latest Documents

preview-icon 4 pages

Received: Nev 12 2015 12111nm "' FfOi'flI 11/12/201513112 #319 P.002 1007 wueéfivsriiigsrimem uov 12 201…

Case Filed

Jun 01, 2010

Case Status

Dismissed

County

Santa Barbara County, CA

Filed Date

Nov 12, 2015

Judge Hon. Anderle, Thomas P Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Anderle, Thomas P
preview-icon 10 pages

ROGERS JOSEPH: @*DONNELL ELECTRONICALLY James Robert Maxwell (State Bar No. 143203) FILED jmaxwell@rjo.com Superior Court of Catifornia, E. pees ‘ano, (State Bar No. 251289) County of San Francisco, jlubarsky@rjo.com 311 California Street icone cece: San Francisco, California 94104 BY:ANNA TORRES Telephone: 415.956.2828 pee Clee Facsimile: 415.956.6457 Attorneys for Defendant CHEMI-SOURCE, INC. DBA MRM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED J…

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Jun 21, 2018

Category

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Judge Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Curtis E.A. Karnow
preview-icon 14 pages

eo eo IN DH BF Bw YH NNR NY NY NY NY NN NY Bw Se Be ewe ew ee eB Re eI DAA FB NH =F Soe we IDA RB WN HE S ROGERS JOSEPH O’DONNELL James Robert Maxwell (State Bar No. 143203) jmaxwell@rjo.com E. Jacob Lubarsky (State Bar No. 251289) jlubarsky@rjo.com 311 California Street San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.956.2828 Facsimile: 415.956.6457 Attorneys for Defendant CHEMI-SOURCE, INC, DBA MRM ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of Catifornia, County of San Francisco 06/21/20…

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Jun 21, 2018

Category

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Judge Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Curtis E.A. Karnow
preview-icon 7 pages

MANA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dec-03-2013 4:36 pm Case Number: CGC-12-521796 Filing Date: Dec-03-2013 4:32 Filed by: KEVIN DOUGHERTY Juke Box: 001 Image: 04296058 GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE) WILLIAM PFLUGH et al VS. 2-4-6-8-10-12 STEINER STREET et al 001004296058 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.FREDERICK A. PATTERSON, ESQ. — State Bar No. 067085 STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER San Francis…

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Dec 03, 2013

Category

CONTRACT/WARRANTY

Judge Hon. James J. McBride Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for James J. McBride
preview-icon 8 pages

DoooSign Envelope ID: 2A5E765F-061A-4445-A2B7-F9F24157F4EE Michael J. McLaughlin (SBN 277814) ELECTRONICALLY Andres M. Sanchez (SBN 237821) Shannon F. Burkhead (SBN 298336) F I L E D …

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Dec 02, 2020

Category

UNLAWFUL DETAINER - COMMERCIAL

Judge Hon. Charles F. Haines Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Charles F. Haines
View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope