Here is a great chart of civil procedure and court rules compiled by Bill Makinney at Pillsbury. There are some additions , or “legal secrets” I could add, but I’ll save that for another day. California State Court Timing Chart-2015
Chart of when the Calif. Rules of Court Says to File Common Papers
Attached is a chart of when the California Rules of Court says you need to file common documents in civil cases.
How to Count like an Attorney (Business vs. Court vs. Calendar Days)
The statutes differentiate between calendar, business and court days. Sometimes a due date is longer or shorter than you may think. Here are two links to help:
The Los Angeles Superior Court “official” Date Calculator:
http://www.lacourt.org/courtdatecalculator/ui/
And here is one that does business, court and calendar days:
https://www.depo.com/resources/fdc.html
Code of Civil Procedure § 12a does NOT extend time to exercise a lease option (Gans v. Smull (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 985
The general “extension rule” of CCP 12a which does apply to 3 Day Notices, does NOT apply to exercise of lease options. In a commercial lease, the civil procedure rule extending period to perform any lawfully required act past holidays, including Saturday, to next non-holiday did not apply to lease between commercial tenants and landlords, so the tenants’ attempt to exercise lease option was untimely, although last day to exercise option fell on Saturday and tenants attempted to exercise option the following Monday.
Continue Reading Code of Civil Procedure § 12a does NOT extend time to exercise a lease option (Gans v. Smull (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 985
Attorney’s fees Awarded on a Voluntarily Dismissed Case based on CC&R’s — Civil Code 5975(c)
In an unpublished case, Durack v. Wang, B276086, on September 27, 2017 the Court stated that Civil Code 1717 does NOT apply in an action based upon CC&R’s so attorney’s fees can be awarded against a party who voluntarily dismissed an action! In this case Plaintiffs brought an action against their condominium homeowners association and several individual defendants and settled as to all defendants but one, then voluntarily dismissed their action against the hold-out defendant.
Continue Reading Attorney’s fees Awarded on a Voluntarily Dismissed Case based on CC&R’s — Civil Code 5975(c)
Evidence Exclusion as punishment for invasion of privacy, ethical violations or pretty much anything
The Courts may exclude evidence as a sanction as part of its inherent power to exclude evidence to cure violation of invasion of privacy and harassment (see Continental Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 94, 107-108) This is based upon the concept that litigation abuse shall not be tolerated. This case was about unethical ex parte communications with a current employee of a represented party (Rule 2-100).
Continue Reading Evidence Exclusion as punishment for invasion of privacy, ethical violations or pretty much anything
Commission Splits & Finder’s Fees as RESPA Violations!
California law allows commission splits and finders fees to be paid, but under the Federal Real Estate Settlement procedures Act (RESPA) they may not be legal. If your seller or buyer wants you to split the broker’s commission with them, that may not be legal unless the seller/buyer is also a real estate licensee. A
Increasing Rent for Condos under “rent control” Using Costa Hawkins CC § 1954.50 et seq
While most rental properties in California are NOT under rent control, many cities have rent control ordinances that state two or more dwelling units, including condos, on a lot if built before a certain date are under rent control. For example, Los Angeles’s cut off date for rent control is October 1, 1978, Santa Monica
Notice to Quit May be Served Before Title Is Recorded after Foreclosure Sale
A buyer purchasing after a foreclosure sale, can serve a notice to quit to a tenant/former owner before recording the deed, e.g. before title is “perfected”. Citing Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a and U.S. Financial, L.P. v. McLitus (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, the Court of Appeal affirmed, stating: “Here we reject the occupant’s
Cross-Examination about laying pipe (Oy Gevalt!)
Here is aa page from an actual trial showing how lawyers make the simplest thing confusing. Click here: Cross Exam about the pipe