Source: https://www.litigationbythenumbers.com/are-you-rusty-on-ca-procedure.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:52:02+00:00

Document:
© 2017 by Julie A. Goren, Esq.
Are you an attorney, paralegal, or legal secretary re-entering the world of California litigation? Have you been working in a busy law office, with constant “rushes” leaving you little or no time to keep up with the latest changes made to California’s codes, rules, and forms? Have you recently moved from a large firm with a docketing department calculating your deadlines and sending you memos alerting you to rule changes, to a small office where you are completely on your own? Either way, with respect to current California civil litigation procedure . . . you are rusty.
You know the old adage: “a little knowledge can be dangerous”? This can be so true if you are rusty. The problem is that you think you know what you are doing because you did it just a few months ago, and, instead of checking the rules, you might simply go ahead and do it, e.g., draft a motion in the wrong format, serve notice of a hearing too late, calendar a deadline past the due date, file a demurrer without complying with the meet and confer procedure, etc. Unfortunately, you are unlikely to discover that something has changed, and that you have made a grave error, until after you have done so.
Following outdated requirements can have serious consequences, among them, waiving the right to do whatever it was you were attempting to do. That’s why it is so important to use an up-to-date, step-by-step California-specific handbook like Litigation By The Numbers®, and to keep it current by subscribing to the twice yearly Update Service.
Judicial Council forms POS-040, POS-040(P), POS-050, POS-050(P) were revised to delete the time of service.
Judicial Council forms MC-010 and 011 (Memo of Costs Summary and Worksheet) are revised effective 9/1/17.
New rules apply to Mandatory Settlement Conferences in L.A.S.C. P.I. Cases in Departments 91 and 97.
Allowable Costs – C.C.P. § 1033.5 is revised to add two more items of recoverable costs: (1) fees for mandatory eFiling or eService through an EFSP, and (2) fees for mandatory hosting of electronic documents by an EFSP.
“Technical” Changes affect format of papers, page numbering, exhibits – C.R.C., Rules 2.109, 3.1110(c), and 3.1113(d) and (h) are all revised.
Service by Fax and Electronic Service – The proofs of service no longer have to include the time of service.
eFiled Documents – entirety of document, including exhibits, must be text searchable where technologically feasible; exhibits must be bookmarked in a particular manner, and more.
Expedited Jury Trials – are mandatory in all limited cases except unlawful detainer and eviction. The rules have been completely revised and reorganized; new procedures include opt out procedure. New and revised Judicial Council forms affect mandatory and voluntary EJT’s. Voir dire is now included in the 5-hour time limit for each side to present its case.
Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum (L.A. County court form) has been revised.
Notice of Deposition – C.C.P. § 2025.220(a)(8) added to require disclosure of contractual relationships between deposing party/third party financing case and court reporting agency or requirement that attorney use a particular reporting agency.
Demurrers – C.C.P. § 430.41 added to require demurring party to attempt to meet and confer prior to filing demurrer and file meet and confer declaration with demurrer; limits on subsequent demurrers; limits amendments to pleadings after demurrer.
MSJ’s and MSA’s – Adds definition of “material fact” to emphasize that only material facts are to be raised and disputed; revised and renumbered the section allowing parties to stipulate to an MSA not disposing of an entire cause of action.
Expedited Jury Trials – Expedited Jury Trial Act divided into two separate sections, one for Voluntary EJT’s and one, effective 7/1/16, for Mandatory EJT’s in certain limited cases. Voluntary EJT section remains as before except that the time limit to put on a case is increased from three hours to five hours.
C.C.P. § 998 – revised to limit recovery for both sides to post-offer costs.
Telephone Appearances – C.R.C., Rule 3.670 revised timing of notice of intent to appear telephonically for regular motions and ex parte hearings.
Memorandum of Costs – C.R.C., Rule 3.1700(a)(1) revised so time runs from service by clerk as opposed to mailing.
Added Fresno, Santa Barbara, and Tulare.
C.C.P. § 135 is amended (via the budget trailer bill) to add Native American Day to the list of Gov. Code § 6700 holidays which are not also court holidays.
Five new courts have instituted mandatory or voluntary eFiling: Kern, Kings, Merced, Riverside, and San Luis Obispo.
Gov. Code § 6700 adds “Native American Day” on the 4th Friday of September. Although there was no intent to create a court holiday, one was created by virtue of the fact that C.C.P. § 135 was not concurrently amended.
C.C.P. § 659a is revised to provide that the timing of post-trial motions, oppositions, and replies is uniform: moving papers due 10 days after filing notice of motion; opposition due 10 days after service of moving papers; reply due five days after service of opposition.
Gov. Code § 26720.9 increases the fee for serving a writ to $40.
San Francisco is the first court to open a direct portal for eFiling. It also now mandates eFiling in all General Civil cases (not Limited Unlawful Detainer or Small Claims) after the conventional filing of the complaint.
As of March 1, 2014, the Antelope Valley courthouse began handling filings and pre-trial matters in Personal Injury Court cases (“PI Cases”) within its district.
Regarding motions format: the hearing reservation ID number must be included on the face page of the notice and the receipt for payment of the hearing fee must be attached as the last page of the motion.
C.R.C., Rule 2.101 no longer requires the use of recycled paper.
C.R.C., Rule 3.670, regarding telephone appearances, has been revised in many respects, including timing of notice (reduced from 3 to 2 court days), and a new set of rules authorizing telephone appearances at ex parte hearings by either applicant or opponent, or both, with specific (and confusing) notice requirements due to error by Judicial Council rules committee. Several subsections have been renumbered.
Changes throughout the C.C.P. clarify that the deadline for moving to compel further responses is triggered by the service of verified responses.
Several eFiling and eService rules changed and/or were renumbered. Key changes: (1) any court may make eFiling mandatory in any civil case; (2) eService is mandatory in any case in which eFiling is mandatory; (3) any court can establish a midnight eFiling deadline; (4) self-represented parties are automatically exempt from any mandatory eFiling and eService rules and orders, and self-represented parties can only consent to eService by serving notice that they agree – eFiling a document does not mean consent.
Telephonic appearance fee increased to $86.
Expedited Jury Trials – Two new forms: (1) [Proposed] Consent Order for Expedited Jury Trial [EJT-020]; (2) Attachment to [Proposed] Consent Order for Expedited Jury Trial [EJT-020A].
C.C.P. §631 changes the deadline for making the jury fee deposit.
Government Code § 70616 increases appearance fees, complex case fees and caps, hearing fees, and more.
Many courts have ceased providing court reporters all together or drastically reduced availability of court reporters. It is now up to the parties to determine whether the court will make a court reporter available, and if not, to follow the steps to obtain the appointment of a court reporter pro tempore.
San Francisco Superior Court adds to those cases which must be eFiled: Complex, Single Assignment, and by stipulation.
SUBP-002 – has been renamed “Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things at Trial or Hearing and Declaration” and revised to reference ESI and to remind the user that they may specify the format in which ESI is to be produced.
CIV-120 – “Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service” has been revised to include electronic service.
EJ-130 – “Writ of Execution” has been revised to conform to the January 2011 changes to C.C.P. § 699.520 relating to the legal entity of the judgment debtor and designating whether the case is limited or unlimited.
C.C.P. § 437c has been revised to add new subsection (s). Generally, motions for summary adjudication (“MSA”) are only to be granted where they will completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. However, parties may now stipulate to bringing MSA’s that do not do so.
C.C.P. § 116.221 has been revised to increase the jurisdictional limits of small claims court for individuals to $10,000, however, claims for bodily injury in auto accident cases where the defendant is covered by an automobile insurance policy that includes a duty to defend cannot exceed $7,500.
Government Code § 70616 has been revised to clarify that one $550 complex case fee covers all plaintiffs.
On 12/15/11 the Orange County Superior Court issued an Administrative Order requiring documents in breach of contract actions commenced after 1/1/12 to be eFiled.
In October of 2011 the Los Angeles Superior Court developed a set of Voluntary Efficient Litigation Stipulations meant to encourage cooperation between the parties and to assist in resolving issues in a manner that promotes economic case resolution and judicial efficiency.
For more information on our essential California civil litigation handbook, click here.
We offer a 30-day review period with a 100% money back guaranty.

References: § 1033
 § 2025
 § 430
 § 998
 § 135
 § 6700
 § 6700
 § 135
 § 659
 § 26720
 §631
 § 70616
 § 699
 § 437
 § 116
 § 70616