This guide is for defense lawyers, claims professionals, insurers, and litigation teams. It covers Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 437c, current timing, filing materials, recent appellate guidance, and practical preparation.
This article is general educational information, not legal advice. Verify the current statutory text, California Rules of Court, local rules, standing orders, and case-specific orders before relying on any deadline.
Key Takeaways
- Summary judgment turns on admissible evidence showing no triable issue of material fact.
- Calculate the hearing, filing, opposition, and reply dates together.
- Put all facts and evidence in the moving papers; reply papers can't add new ones.
- Separate statements, admissibility, and local procedures decide whether the court reaches the merits.
Understanding California Summary Judgment Motions
What a motion for summary judgment is
Under CCP 437c(c), the motion "shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
The court doesn't weigh credibility or choose between competing narratives. It asks whether the admissible record leaves anything to try.
A triable issue is material only if it could change the outcome under the governing claims or defenses. A dispute about an irrelevant detail doesn't defeat the motion. Conflicting reasonable inferences on a material fact do.
Summary judgment, summary adjudication, and other motions
Summary adjudication (MSA) targets pieces of a case. Under 437c(f)(1), it is available for a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a Civil Code 3294 punitive damages claim, or an issue of duty. It must completely dispose of the selected item.
CCP 437c(t) offers a narrower route for legal issues or nonpunitive damages claims that don't completely dispose of a category. It requires a joint stipulation, supporting declarations, notice to nonstipulating parties, and court permission.
Other pretrial devices serve different purposes:
- Demurrer (CCP 430.10) tests whether the pleading is legally sufficient.
- Motion to strike (CCP 435-436) removes irrelevant, false, or improper pleading matter.
- Discovery motions (such as CCP 2031.310) compel adequate responses.
Only an MSJ or MSA tests the evidentiary merits.
Burdens and typical defense grounds
The leading authority is Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826. Under 437c(p)(2), a moving defendant meets its burden by showing that one or more elements of the claim, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that a complete defense exists.
The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show a triable issue. Pleading allegations or denials alone are not enough.
A moving plaintiff must prove each element of the cause of action, after which the defendant must show a triable issue on the claim or a defense.
Common defense grounds include:
- No duty owed (an issue that can be adjudicated on its own)
- No causation evidence
- Lack of notice in a premises case
- Absence of admissible proof on a required element
- A complete affirmative defense
Ground each argument in the claim elements and current authority.
California Summary Judgment Deadlines and Hearing Timelines
Governing sources and the current schedule
CCP 437c is the primary source, last amended by AB 2049 (Stats. 2024, ch. 99), effective January 1, 2025. California Rules of Court 3.1350 and local rules add procedure. The current periods are statutory calendar days, not the court days used in CCP 1005's default schedule.
| Event | Current requirement |
|---|---|
| Earliest filing | After 60 days from the targeted party's general appearance (earlier for good cause) |
| Motion and supporting papers | Served at least 81 days before hearing, plus service extensions |
| Opposition | Filed and served at least 20 days before hearing |
| Reply | Filed and served at least 11 days before hearing |
| Hearing | No later than 30 days before trial, unless the court orders otherwise for good cause |
The prior schedule was 75 days for the motion, 14 for opposition, and 5 for reply. Amendment details are in Legislative Counsel's bill text.
Service extensions and local rules
Section 437c(a)(2) extends the motion service deadline by method and destination:
- 5 days for mail to a California address
- 10 days for mail elsewhere in the United States
- 20 days for mail outside the country
- 2 court days for fax, express mail, or overnight delivery
- 2 court days for electronic service under CCP 1010.6 (generally)
Opposition and reply periods count backward from the hearing. Confirm the computation under CCP 12, 12a, and 12c before relying on a date.
Local practice varies and isn't interchangeable across courts:
- Los Angeles: reservations are cancelled if the motion isn't filed within 3 court days.
- San Francisco (Departments 301/302): no reservation number; designate the hearing date in the motion, and comply with courtesy-copy rules.
- Orange County (Department C32): MSJ/MSA motions are excepted from the 24-hour filing rule after reservation.
Always check the department's current procedures and any standing order.
Backward-planning checklist
- Pick the target hearing date and confirm it falls at least 30 days before trial.
- Subtract 81 days, plus the service extension, to find the last service date.
- Mark the opposition (20 days) and reply (11 days) dates.
- Reserve the hearing and note local filing cutoffs.
- Finish exhibits, declarations, and the separate statement well before service.
- Run a final quality-control pass on citations and page limits.
Don't apply these periods to an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike. Those follow different rules.
Required Papers, Separate Statements, and Evidence
The filing package
Under Rule 3.1350, a moving package includes:
- Notice of motion (MSA issues stated in the notice and repeated verbatim in the separate statement)
- Memorandum (20 pages for opening and opposition, 10 for reply under Rule 3.1113)
- Separate statement
- Supporting evidence, with a table of contents if it exceeds 25 pages
- Request for judicial notice, where appropriate
A proposed order isn't a universal initial requirement, but local rules may demand one. Rule 3.1312 generally requires the prevailing party to serve one within 5 days after the ruling.
Build a persuasive separate statement
The moving statement uses two columns: numbered material facts on the left and supporting evidence on the right, with exhibit, page, and line references.
The opposition repeats each fact and evidence verbatim, then states whether it is disputed, explains why, and cites evidence. Additional material facts go in a separate section.
Common defects:
- Argumentative or compound facts
- Missing citations, or citations that don't support the fact
- Failure to address an element
- Failure to respond to every fact in the other side's statement
Section 437c(b)(1) permits denial for a defective moving statement. For oppositions, courts have discretion but not an automatic shortcut. In Parkview Villas Assn. v. State Farm, a refusal to consider an opposition was reversed where the statement identified the disputes and evidence despite deficiencies.
Organize and authenticate the evidence
Section 437c(b) lists depositions, admissions, and interrogatory answers, but that listing doesn't waive admissibility. Declarations need personal knowledge and an affirmative showing of competence under 437c(d).
Recent published authority makes the risk concrete:
- Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC (2017) 2 Cal.5th 536: an expert declaration inadmissible for disclosure noncompliance can't create a triable issue when properly challenged.
- Sargenti v. City of Long Beach (May 15, 2026, No. B340275): Second District authority holds inadmissible evidence can't support opposition just because the defect might be cured at trial. It involved an unauthenticated Google Street View screenshot.
Written objections follow Rule 3.1354: file with the opposition or reply, number each objection, quote the material, state grounds, and attach a proposed order. Under 437c(q), the court need rule only on objections material to the disposition.
Connect facts to the legal argument
Organize the memorandum by the elements of each claim or defense. Link every legal proposition to a numbered undisputed fact and a specific exhibit cite. Anticipate the opposition, because the reply can't introduce new evidence.
Technology-assisted file review for defense teams
Large claim files slow every MSJ. OraClaim helps defense lawyers and claims professionals structure files, surface key facts, and cut repetitive review. Attorneys keep control over legal analysis, evidence selection, and filing decisions.
Technology supports organization and quality control. Counsel remains responsible for:
- Verifying citations and admissibility
- Protecting confidentiality
- Meeting deadlines and complying with court rules
Generic AI output isn't fileable as is.
Recent California Rule Changes and Appellate Guidance
AB 2049: timing, successive motions, and reply papers
AB 2049 was chaptered July 15, 2024, and took effect January 1, 2025. Besides lengthening the periods, it did three things:
- Reply limits (437c(b)(4)): the reply may not include new evidence, additional material facts, or a new separate statement.
- Successive motions: a party gets one MSJ against an adverse party absent leave for good cause. The limit doesn't apply to MSAs.
- Denied MSAs (437c(f)(2)): an MSJ can't rest on issues from a previously denied MSA without new facts or a change of law.
The enacted bill contains no express transition clause for motions served before January 1, 2025. Check how your court is treating motions already pending under the prior deadlines.
Who may oppose, and how local rules operate
RND Contractors, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 697 (Fourth Dist., Div. Two; partially published) holds that an adverse co-defendant may oppose another defendant's MSJ without a cross-complaint, and that the plaintiff's nonopposition doesn't eliminate that right.
Writ relief issued after the opposition was disregarded. Bean v. City of Thousand Oaks (Sept. 29, 2025) expressly agrees.
CFP BDA, LLC v. Superior Court (No. E085583; published by Supreme Court order July 10, 2025) holds that local reservation and calendaring rules can't prevent a statutorily timely MSJ from getting a merits hearing. It doesn't authorize shortening statutory notice. Confirm the official reporter citation and any later treatment before citing it.
Practical implications
- Collect evidence early and file complete moving papers.
- Assess whether co-defendants are adverse before assuming no one will oppose.
- Act promptly if a local rule or court administration issue threatens a timely hearing.
Neither decision excuses local-rule compliance. Document your compliance and seek relief when a conflict arises.
Strategy, Opposition, and Common Failure Points
Decide whether an MSJ or MSA fits
Weigh these factors before you file:
- Strength of the legal issue
- Completeness of discovery and quality of admissible evidence
- Trial date and preparation cost
- Risk that one factual dispute sinks the motion
A discrete duty or affirmative defense issue may suit an MSA better than an overbroad MSJ. MSAs must completely dispose of their target. Authoritative statewide MSJ grant rates are hard to find, so avoid relying on rule-of-thumb odds.
Prepare or oppose without gaps
Opposition. Cover every material fact without gaps:
- Identify genuine disputes
- Cite admissible evidence
- Challenge unsupported assertions
- Explain why each dispute affects an element
If essential facts may exist but cannot yet be presented, 437c(h) allows an affidavit seeking denial or a continuance. Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) shows courts require a real showing of diligence.
Reply. Answer arguments already raised. Do not try to cure missing evidence or add a new factual theory.
Outcomes and denial reasons
A court may deny or partly grant a motion because:
- The movant didn't meet its initial burden (the burden never shifts, so opposition weaknesses don't fix this)
- Admissible evidence shows a triable issue
- The legal theory is incomplete
- A procedural or evidentiary defect blocks the ruling
Distinguish a merits denial from a procedural rejection, partial adjudication, and a continuance. Under 437c(m)(1), a writ petition is due within 20 days after service of written notice of entry of the order, with a possible good-cause extension of up to 10 days. Verify any next step against the actual order.
Frequently Asked Questions
When must a motion for summary judgment be filed in California?
Serve it at least 81 days before the hearing under CCP 437c, plus any service extensions. Do not file earlier than 60 days after the targeted party's general appearance. The hearing must fall at least 30 days before trial; check local rules and court orders.
What are the rules for filing for summary judgment in California?
The moving party must show no triable issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. File the notice, memorandum, separate statement, and admissible evidence, and serve on the 81/20/11-day schedule under CCP 437c and the California Rules of Court.
What is the deadline for filing opposition to a motion in California?
For an MSJ, opposition is due at least 20 days before the hearing. Ordinary motions follow CCP 1005’s default of 9 court days before the hearing, subject to service-method extensions.
What happens if you don't respond to a motion in time?
The court may refuse to consider late papers under Rule 3.1300(d). A non-opposition does not automatically win the motion, because the movant must still meet its burden. Seek relief promptly rather than assuming an extension.
Why would you file a motion for summary judgment?
To resolve claims or defenses before trial when the admissible record shows no triable issue of material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It can save trial cost and narrow the case.
Why would a judge deny a motion for summary judgment?
Common reasons include a genuine material factual dispute, a failure to meet the moving burden, inadmissible or insufficient evidence, an incomplete legal theory, or a procedural defect such as a deficient separate statement.
