In Marcus and Millichap Real Estate (April 30, 2018) G053953, a sympathetic Court reversed a ruling so that a once wealthy, but now poor Plaintiff who lost more than $2.8million by the defendants for elder abuse and breach of fiduciary duty, and after being in arbitration for many years, ask the trial court to transfer the case back to the Superior Court in a declaratory relief action citing Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 87. The trial court denied the relief, but the Court of Appeal rode in on their shiny horse and saved them ! The triable issue was if the plaintiffs had a present ability to pay her agreed arbitration share.
The Court citing precedent that a defendant cannot avoid potential liability by forcing a matter to arbitration and then making it so expensive that plaintiff has no choice but to give up, allowed the Plaintiff to proceed in the Superior Court. I like this case because it shows how the law can do what is right, and not be narrow with a “but the contract says” position.
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. 
Attached is a chart of when the California Rules of Court says you need to file common documents in civil cases.
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 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. 
In an unpublished case, Durack v. Wang, B276086, on September 27, 2017 the Court stated that Civil Code 1717 does NOT apply in an action based upon CC&R’s so attorney’s fees can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. 
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). 
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 claim that the notice to quit is premature, and hold that Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a does not require that title be recorded before the notice to quit is served.” (Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (Cal. App. 2nd Dist., Div. 6, 2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 450.)