What is a Memorandum of Points and Authorities?

Whenever a motion is filed with the court it must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum of points and authorities. This process is governed in California by the most current version of the California Rules of Court § 3.1113.

“A party filing a motion, except for a motion listed in rule 3.1114, must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported.” (CRC 3.1113(a).)

“The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Id.)

The rule goes on to explain the format citations should be in and also the acceptable lengths the memorandum can be. “Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.” (Id.) If the memorandum is for summary judgment or summary adjudication then it can be up to a maximum of 20 pages. (Id.) The caption page, notice of motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, table of contents, table of authorities, and proof of service do not count toward the page total of a memorandum. (Id.)

Parties are allowed to ask the court ex parte for permission to file a longer memorandum so long as they notify the other parties in writing and explain to the court why the argument could not be made in a standard memorandum. (Id.)

California Rules of Court § 3.1114 lists the civil motions, applications, and petitions that do not require a memorandum such as motion to be relieved as counsel, motion filed in a small claims case, petition for change of name or gender, etc. (CRC 3.1114.) However, “if it would further the interests of justice” a party can file a motion or the court can order one submitted but it must still comply with the guidelines in CRC § 3.1113. (Id.)

Useful Rulings on Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Recent Rulings on Memorandum of Points and Authorities

EDWARD VS. DANA POINT TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION

Although this request violates California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113 which requires that a request for judicial notice be made in a separate document, the Court may take judicial notice on its own volition. (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 746, 752.) Thus, the Court takes judicial notice of the requested document as a court record pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d), but declines to take judicial notice of hearsay statements contained in the court’s records.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

VANESSA WHITNEY VS CHAIM DERRY

CRC 3.1110, 3.1113. Clerk to give notice. Certificate of Mailing is attached. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed by Chaim Derry on 12/18/2019 is Denied. Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment Defendant moves to set aside the default and default judgment entered against him. Defendant asserts he was never served with the summons and complaint, and that there are often issues with mail in Defendant’s building.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE FLORES ET AL VS MICHELLE MURPHY ET AL

Plaintiffs’ Opposition exceeds the 15-page limit set forth in CRC Rule 3.1113(d) & (e) without having received permission. A memorandum filed in excess of the page limits “must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.” (Calif. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(g).) The Court has discretion to disregard a late-filed brief. (Calif. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(d).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KINGSMAN REAL ESTATE CORPORATION VS DESERT REVOLUTIONS GROUP LLC, ET AL.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(l) provides that “[a]ny request for judicial notice must be made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested.” Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is procedurally improper. DEMURRER “A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NICOLE CAMPOS VS LAUSD

This exceeds the 15 pages authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d). Pursuant to rule 3.1113(g), it is to be treated as a late-filed paper; rule 3.1300(d) allows the court to refuse to consider a late-filed paper. Nevertheless, as defendant LAUSD has not objected to the length of the opposition memorandum and considering the Legislature’s clearly expressed intent that anti-SLAPP motions be heard on an expedited fashion (see Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CITY OF DANA POINT V. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECOVERY CENTER

CRC 3.1300(d); 3.1113(g). Those 20 pages did not provide any supporting argument for Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication. The Court therefore considers and rules on only the Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants’ evidentiary objections are sustained as to Objection Nos. 1, 2, 10, and 13; all remaining objections are overruled. Defendants are alleged to own and/or operate a sober living home on La Paz in the City of Dana Point (the “City”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

JOEL PASCHAL VS KOLLIDER INDUSTRIES LLC ET AL

Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BETTY LOUZA VS FAISAL AHMED, ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a).) Counsel for Olympia states she met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel on May 6, 2020. There is no information about whether the meet and confer occurred in person or telephonically. Counsel for Dr. Ahmed states he met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel via email on April 30, 2020 regarding the FAC before it was filed, as counsel had agreed to discuss a proposed amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CARO VS INDUSTRIAL COMMERICAL SYSTEMS INC [E-FILE]

(See, CRC Rule 3.1113) The court will approve the Proposed Notice and Proposed Order with the following changes: - Deadline to request exclusion, submit disputes or object should be changed to December 26, 2020; - The Final Fairness hearing shall be heard on February 5, 2021; - The deadline to file the motion prior to the Final Fairness hearing should be pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure; - The actual dates of each relevant deadline should be included in the Notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EDWIN HAMMOND MEREDITH VS FRANZ GERALD TISSERA, ET AL.

The court noted the application was not in compliance with CRC 3.1113(d), did not provide documentary evidence in support of ex parte relief, did not provide evidence of alter ego, and made no showing of emergency. On July 9, 2019, Defendants filed a Substitution of Attorney, substituting Attorney Antonio Castillo, III for Attorney Brian M. Burns. On January 17, 2020, Defendants stated they would be self-represented rather than represented by Attorney Antonio Castillo, III.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NOLL V. SANTA ROSA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL

Finally, and somewhat ironically, Defendant submits a lengthy response to Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections arguing in part that Plaintiff’s objections impermissibly included substantive arguments, thereby exceeding their 15-page limit under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(d). However, the Court notes that Defendant similarly includes substantive arguments in its response to the evidentiary objections, also exceeding the page limit for a reply.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Jennifer V

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

WILLIAM SZYMCZAK V. NATURAL HEALING CENTER, LLC

The motion to exceed the page limitation for the reply set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d) is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

ANDREW CACCIATORE VS HAPPY GIFTS, INC., ET AL.

Ct. 3.1113(a) (emphasis added). Where a moving party’s motion or demurrer is supported by a deficient memorandum, trial courts are justified in denying the motion on procedural grounds. Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assocs., Inc., 197 Cal. App. 4th 927, 934 (2011) (citing Chavez. v. Netflix, Inc., 162 Cal. App. 4th 43, 52 (2008)).

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC ET AL VS XAVIER RUFFIN ET AL

Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).) Additionally, the court notes that while the use of single-spaced lines are permissible for the use of quotations (see id. 2.108(3)), Defendants impermissibly use block quotes of certain declarations (see opposition pp. 15-16, 19-21, 23-24) to violate the page limits further. Considering these combined violations, the court exercises its discretion to refuse to consider the pages exceeding the permissible page limits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(g).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MANUEL DE LA CRUZ

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113, subdivision (b) because it lacked supporting legal authority. At the second hearing on November 4, 2019, the Court continued the matter to give Defendant one final opportunity to comply with the Court’s order. Specifically, the Court ordered Defendant to file and serve supplemental papers correcting the problems discussed above to at least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113 requires a memorandum to be submitted in support of a motion, which must contain a “statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).) Defendant has not met those requirements here.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113 requires a memorandum to be submitted in support of a motion, which must contain a “statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).) Defendant has not met those requirements here.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION OF LAGUNA WOODS V. DICKINSON

See Rule 3.1113(d) of the California Rule of Court (“CRC”). The Court exercises its discretion to consider the over-length opposition to this brief, but cautions Cross-Complainant that in future he must fully comply with all applicable page limits. Failure to do so may result in the Court disregarding the over-length submission in its entirety or disregarding all portions of the opposition that exceed the page limit.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CLARK & TREVITHICK, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VS JO-ANN GRACE, ET AL.

If Defendants wanted the Court to take judicial notice of any such document, Defendants must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(l), by making this request in a separate document listing the specific items which notice is requested. C. Discussion 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

HORACE WILLIAMS JR. ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING ET AL.

See CRC Rule 3.1112(a)(3); CRC Rule 3.1113(b) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of the facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”); CRC Rule 3.1113(a) (“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion…is not meritorious and cause for its denial…”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

ALEX GHASSEMIEH VS FERRARI NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

This violates the 15 page limit set by CRC, Rule 3.1113(d). The Court has discretion to ignore the opposition for either reason. The Court will consider the untimely, oversized memorandum up to the fifteenth page. Existence of a Valid Arbitration Agreement As with any contract, mutual assent or consent is necessary for the formation of a valid arbitration agreement. (Civ. Code, §§ 1550, 1565.) “Consent is not mutual, unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense.” (Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EPIFANIO ROMAN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

(CRC 3.1113(l)). Judicial notice may be taken of “(d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” (Evid. Code § 452.)¿ GM requests judicial notice of various documents filed in California courts. The Court GRANTS these requests. OBJECTIONS Roman objects to the Declaration of Nathaniel Cowden offered by GM in support of their Opposition. The Court OVERRULES these objections.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WAHLSTROM VS GLORIA

Court, rule 3.1113(d), (e), and (g).) The court observes Defendant San Diego County Democratic Party filed a "joinder" in Defendant Gloria's demurrer. (ROA 45.) The joinder is improper and was not considered. Demurrers do not lend themselves well to "joinders," as the allegations against each defendant must be separately scrutinized.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

SLS VENICE HOLDINGS, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

(See CCP § 1094; CRC 3.1113(a).) “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (CRC 3.1113(b).) Petitioner’s legal briefing violates these important rules in several ways. Petitioner’s four-page opening brief inaccurately summarizes the Administrative Record and provides only a cursory legal argument.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CRAIG ROSS, ET AL. VS SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, ET AL.

(CA Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113 (l).) Plaintiff requested judicial notice of documents that were included in counsel’s declaration and in various portions of the opposition. This is in violation of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(l). Therefore, the Court does not consider Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice. Defendant Estalella requests judicial notice of Exhibits 1 – 5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 99     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.