Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

In an Unlimited Civil (Defamation) Case, Defendant (an H.O.A.), through their attorney, responded to a complaint with a Demurrer, Memorandum of Points & Authorities (filed and served seperately), and Declaration (also filed seperately).

The Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer (itself) and Declaration was filed and served within the 16 court days allowed, before the hearing date.

BUT, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Demurrer was filed and served, seperately, 10 court days before the scheduled demurrer hearing, thus making that Memorandum untimely.

I wanted to know, since the Memorandum of Points & Authorities was Untimely filed and served, but the Notice of Demurrer, Demurrer, and Declaration were not (cause they were filed on time), would that make the whole demurrer (Notice, Demurrer, Declaration), overall, untimely too.

and could I go in Ex-Parte and Strike out Defendant's "Untimely" Demurrer from the court's calander date & court docket, and in that same Ex-Parte Application ask to enter Default agianst defendant?


Asked on 3/30/13, 4:38 pm

4 Answers from Attorneys

Joel Selik www.SelikLaw.com

Yes, it is untimely. Yes, you can move to strike. I would think that most judges would simply give you more time to oppose the motion or allow defendant time to reserve the demurrer papers.

Read more
Answered on 3/30/13, 4:41 pm
Anthony Roach Law Office of Anthony A. Roach

I see what you are saying. You need to point out that the memorandum was served late. You can move to strike a demurrer, which is filed at the time your opposition is due. The declaration in support of the demurrer is improper also, because a demurrer is not the vehicle for introducing facts that are not in the complaint or in matters that are subject to judicial notice.

Read more
Answered on 3/30/13, 6:51 pm
Charles Perry Law Offices of Charles R. Perry

In response to your question in your last paragraph, your ex parte application would almost certainly be denied, as asking for too drastic a remedy for the violation of the rules. Courts strongly favor decisions on the merits, and will not use a first-time filing of late papers to allow a default judgment to be taken. This is particularly true on an ex parte basis.

The court has discretion to refuse to consider a late paper and deny the demurrer on those grounds. The court, however, can consider the late paper if it so chooses.

There is no great remedy here. You can file your opposition late (but as fast as possible), with an explanation as to why you had to do so. If the court sees you worked as quickly as possible, then it's very unlikely the court will be upset with you. You can also go ex parte to try to set a new hearing date and a date for your opposition. The work on the ex parte, however, cuts into your time to file the opposition if the ex parte is denied. Note that ex parte applications are routinely denied if the rules are not strictly followed.

Alternatively, you can try to negotiate a new hearing date with the other side -- and note in your opposition papers that you tried to do so if the other side refuses. I would at least try this, as it is the least time consuming option.

Read more
Answered on 3/31/13, 2:14 am

You have received good answers. I just write to add that there is a statute that says that if an attorney files a declaration of responsibility for mistakes that resulted in a default being entered, the court MUST set aside the default. So all you would be doing with all your planned legal maneuvering is waste your time and the court's time. And there is no better way to get the courts pissed at you than to waste their time.

Read more
Answered on 3/31/13, 12:50 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in California