As we all know by now, AB 2049, effective January 1, 2025, codified amendments to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c regarding timelines for filing motions for summary judgment (“MSJs”). What most of us don’t know, however, is why this legislation was introduced and passed.
Background on Timelines for MSJs
In 2002, the Legislature drastically amended the timelines for filing notice of a summary judgment motion from 28 days to 75 days. The explanation for this change was to ensure that the responding party had adequate time to fully respond to a motion, including adequate time to conduct discovery. The proponents argued that the 28-day notice period in existing law prior to that point was “insufficient time for a party to respond to the literally hundreds of pages that are filed in support of a motion, and, most importantly, to conduct and complete discovery that is essential to proving up the plaintiff’s case.”
This extended notice period was meant to discourage gamesmanship by “defendants who file unwieldy motions and then resist or delay in complying with discovery requests, so that plaintiffs are hard pressed to present their response and prove their case in the 28 days permitted for filing a reply.” AB 2049 makes the first structural change to Section 437c in over 20 years.
Why the Change?
The addition of six days to each of the above deadlines is designed to address a problem with current law, which “backloads” the deadlines to submit replies too close to summary judgment hearings, leaving judges with insufficient time to thoughtfully evaluate these important motions.
In its discussion of AB 2049, the Legislative Analyst’s Office stated: “Summary judgment motions are critical tools for courts to eliminate meritless lawsuits or defenses to lawsuits. Under existing law . . . the reply leaves the court with just five days before the hearing date to evaluate the reply.”
Further, the co-sponsors of this measure – – the California Defense Counsel, the Conference of California Bar, and the California Judges Association – – argued that the timeframes for filing oppositions to summary judgment motions, and for filing replies to those oppositions, is so close to the hearings on the motions that “judges simply do not have the time to give the pleadings the evaluation they deserve.”
The bill’s author states: “Current law establishes a deadline for submitting the reply to oppositions to summary judgment, only five calendar days before the hearing on the motion. Three-day weekends impact the time that judges have to review the motions, and judges report that they often do not receive the complete file until the day of the hearing. Judges will now have six additional days to review the often-voluminous files relating to summary judgment, a time extension that courts have been seeking for years.”
AB 2049 improves the rules and timelines for one of the most problematical motions in civil litigation.
Benefits of the Change in MSJ Timelines
The Judicial Council of California offered the following comments regarding the adjustment to the summary judgment deadlines: “The fifth of seven goals in the Judicial Branch Strategic Plan is ‘Quality of Justice and Service to the Public.’ AB 2049 furthers this goal because it supports judicial officers in being prepared to act on summary judgment motions in a timely and informed manner.”
Motions for summary judgment are some of the most time-consuming pretrial matters that civil courts handle, yet the previous five-day timeline for a reply to an opposition brief presented significant challenges, particularly when filed at the end of the week, leaving only two court days to review the reply.
Adjusting the MSJ deadlines ensures that no party has less time to prepare or respond than what is provided under current law. Providing adequate time to support a fully informed bench is not only a benefit to itself, but also: promotes efficiencies for courts and court users by reducing the need for continuances; enhances the ability to make effective use of the noticed hearing; and, allows judges and court staff attorneys the time needed to more fully address the parties’ issues when issuing tentative rulings.
There was broad support for this bill, including:
- California Defense Counsel (co-sponsor)
- California Judges Association (co-sponsor)
- Conference of California Bar Associations (co-sponsor)
- Judicial Council of California
- Consumer Attorneys of California
Notably, there was no opposition by any interested groups or organizations.
The New Timelines
The bill modifies the timeline for noticing a motion for summary judgment from 75 to 81 calendar days before the hearing on the motion. The timeline for submitting an opposition to the motion is modified from 14 calendar days to 20 calendar days before the hearing, and the timeline for submitting a reply to an opposition is modified from 5 calendar days to 11 calendar days before the hearing.
Categorized in: Legal Procedure
| << previous | next >> |