What is a Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading?

The court is authorized to extend the deadline for “an act to be done.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 1054. The court may only extend the deadline by 30 days unless the other party consents to a longer period. Code Civ. Proc. § 1054(b).

“[I]t is well settled that orders of extension granted pursuant to... [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1054 must be made during the period of time within which the act may be done, that is, while the right is still alive; and, if made after the expiration of such period, the orders are void and confer no legal authority for the doing of the act.” Coast Electric Service v. Jensen (1931) 111 Cal.App. 124, 126; Start v. Heinzerling (1915) 27 Cal.App. 145, 148.

An application for an order extending the time within which an act is required to be done must be heard and determined by the judge before whom the matter is pending. Calif. Rules of Court, rule 2.20.

An extension of time to file a responsive pleading may also be granted under Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.41. This section requires that before filing a demurrer, “[t]he parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer. The 30-day extension shall commence from the date the responsive pleading was previously due, and the demurring party shall not be subject to default during the period of the extension. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(2).

Useful Rulings on Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading

Recent Rulings on Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs contend they are subject to the following interim harm: (1) the requirement that by 10/10/16 they submit a time consuming and burdensome new application, which applications may be denied for any number of new and trivial reasons; (2) the risk of Notices of Violation ("NOV") that can also be used to revoke a STR permit for minor violations, all of which can be criminally prosecuted and punished; (3) the loss of goodwill and damage to relations with renters, fewer bookings, and the potential need to

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

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

At the conclusion of oral argument relating to that issue, the Court allowed the parties the opportunity to brief two additional questions: (1) whether under the terms of the lease Defendant SARVS is entitled to be compensated for the potential loss of goodwill under Section 13.2(f), and (2) whether the calculation of the fair market value of the 2.9 acres in question should take into consideration the existence of the SCE-SARVS lease pertaining to that property.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The motion is MOOT as to Issue 2, which seeks adjudication of the Third Cause of Action, which Plaintiffs dismissed as to Count 1, under the General Contract. [ROA 2604.] 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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

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

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

MALIN VS AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION

Continued to 7-19-2019

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

OSCAR ESCOBEDO, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

The Court made the following order on 9-18-20:AFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented. AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1: This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE EAST DISTRICT, JUDGE GLORIA QHITE-BROWN presiding in DEPT.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

VEJ POMONA 8, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS FRANK CURTIN, ET AL.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 580(a), “[t]he relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115[.]” If Plaintiffs seek additional damages in addition to those set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiffs need to amend the Complaint to properly reflect the requested damages and give notice to Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

In that time period, Defendant Ace paid Smith Barnett its invoices for the racking material. (See Declaration of Bruce Poltrock ¶ 6.) Mr. Christou spoke with Ms. Dadbin again on December 3, where he told her that Defendant Ace’s account had been changed to Smith Barnett but failed to mention that Defendant Ace was making payments to Smith Barnett. (Dadbin Decl., ¶¶ 17-20.) In opposition, Defendant Ace offers the declaration of Paul Laurin, who attended the depositions of Mr. Christou, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

On September 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Chen, Tissuesco and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Fiduciary Duty On October 23, 2019, Chen’s default was entered. On September 1, 2020, Tissuesco’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for November 2, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff Changliang Dai’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Defendants contend that terminating sanctions are appropriate based on the length of time from the initial request, the multiple voluntary extensions granted by Defendants, all of the Interrogatories remain unanswered, and the disobedience of the court’s previous order compelling responses to discovery. The court should not issue terminating sanctions if there appears to be any justifiable reason, explanation, or excuse for non-compliance with the court’s discovery order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

NATIONWIDE BANK VS WEI ZHU

FURTHERMORE, DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT STATES THAT DEFENDANT SEEKS $242,427.93, WHICH ALSO DOES NOT MATCH EITHER THE DEMAND IN THE CROSS-COMPLAINT OR THE REQUEST IN THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT. IF CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEEKS STORAGE FEES ON TOP OF THE DEMANDED AMOUNT FOR THE VEHICLE, CROSS-COMPLAINANT NEEDS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO PROPERLY REFLECT THE REQUESTED DAMAGES AND GIVE NOTICE TO CROSS-DEFENDANT] 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. MATTHEWS

Notice of the Conservatee's Death was filed by Conservator on 6/17/20. Status Report Hearing shall go off calendar. The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

Additionally, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5(b) “[a] party moving to strike a pleading that has been amended after a motion to strike an earlier version of the pleading was granted shall not move to strike any portion of the pleadings on grounds that could have been raised by a motion to strike as to the earlier version of the pleading.” Here, the attorney’s fees request was included in the SAC, but Defendants did not move to strike such request.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194 Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements—Cal. Labor Code § 226 Failure to Reimburse for Reasonable Business Expenses—Cal. Labor Code § 2802 Waiting Time Penalties—Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203 On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein Yiping Ye (“Ye”) was substituted in for Doe 1. On March 18, 2019, Hummingbird’s answer was stricken. On March 27, 2019, Hummingbird’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

In the event Plaintiff recovers the Equipment, Plaintiff shall sell the Equipment in a commercially reasonable manner and file a partial satisfaction of judgment in the amount of the net proceeds form the sale.” The Judicial Council Form CIV-100 (“Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter default)”) reflects that a court judgment in the amount of $123,186.97 is to be entered against Muniz, Dragon and Zhang.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

Plaintiff has not provided the court with any of these written notices or the dates on which any of these complaints were made. Plaintiff has not provided the court with any documentary evidence of the habitability issues. Plaintiff references, but fails to attach, a complaint he filed with the Health Department. (Id., ¶15.) Plaintiff is requested to provide same. Plaintiff is also requested to provide a copy of the dismissal of the unlawful detainer lawsuit. ANALYSIS Yes (11/14/19) Default Entered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Attorney Fees and Costs The Court declines ruling on all the request for attorney’s fees and costs at this time as based on the denial of the motion for Final Approval due to the parties’ failure to obtain preliminary approval of the addendum to the settlement. Incentive Award The Court declines ruling on all the request for incentive awards at this time as based on the denial of the motion for Final Approval due to the parties’ failure to obtain preliminary approval of the addendum to the settlement.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

CONS. OF IVY NADINE COPANSKY

RE: PET’N FOR TERMINATION OF CONSERVATORSHIP FILED ON 07/29/19 BY MELVIN PAUL COPANSKY PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status Drop. Need appearances Note: First Account and Report filed by CSC Fiduciaries, Inc. filed 6-11-20. See Line # 9.D.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: COMPLIANCE REVIEW RE FILING 1ST ACCOUNT SET BY D14 ON 10/11/19

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status of filing accounting Notes: A. There is a related proceeding in Dept. 25. See Case # MSD19-00550. B. Letters of Conservatorship of Person issued to Clinton Mitchell 11-7-18. C. Letters of Temporary Conservatorship of Estate issued to Clinton Mitchell 9-27-19. Per Order filed 8-29-2020, bond is not required. D. Per 10-11-19 minute order, court granted general Petition for Appointment of Conservator.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS OF MELVIN COPANSKY

File a verified declaration to include current address of maternal grandfather, and names and current addresses of paternal grandparents 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: DECLARATION (EX PARTE) RE TERMINATE SET BY MELVIN PAUL COPANSKY

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS OF JAMES D. BROWN

Carleton Kui Ming Kam to appear or doctor’s declaration stating inability to appear or waiver by counsel 3. Report of Atty. Douglas Housman Note: Order Appointing Temporary Conservatorship of Person/Estate filed 4-22-2020. Katrina Kam appointed temporary conservator of person and David Hanks appointed as to estate. CARLETON KUI MING KAM DOUGLAS W HOUSMAN CSC FIDUCIARIES, INC.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS. OF IVY NADINE COPANSKY

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -- See also Line # 9 -- Need appearances to report status Note: Per 8-12-2020 minute order, conservatorship of person was terminated. JAY ZIMMER CRAIG L. JUDSON LEO F. BAUTISTA DANIEL A PRESHER MELVIN PAUL COPANSKY CAROLYN D CAIN

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR APRVL OF 1ST ACCT & RPT, FOR COMPENSATION

FILED ON 02/27/20 BY IDA ARNE PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances If this matter is continued, please set at 9:30 a.m. COLTON BOONE VALLEE IDA ARNE TRACY S REGLI SCOUT MARGARET VALLEE Need appearances to report status CLINTON P MITCHELL ERNEST EDWARD MITCHELL PATANISHA DAVIS-JENKINS PATENISHA DAVIS PATANISHA DAVIS-JENKINS

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • 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.