An application for an order shortening the time for a hearing in California is the topic of this blog post.
An application for an order shortening the time for a hearing in California is virtually always done using an ex parte application.
There are certain situations in civil litigation in California where an application for an order shortening time is necessary such as:
Situations where a trial date is fast approaching and there is not enough time for a motion, such as a discovery motion, to be heard on regular notice. This is due to the fact that Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020(a) states that all discovery motions must be heard at least fifteen (15) calendar days before the trial date.
Situations where the moving party wants to request a continuance of a trial on the grounds that they need additional time to obtain evidence, an essential witness is not available to testify on the scheduled trial date, etc.
Thus, obtaining an order shortening the time for hearing is a very useful tool in California litigation. However, any party seeking ex-parte relief in California should state in the first paragraph of the ex-parte application the irreparable harm that will result if the Court does not grant the requested relief on an ex-parte basis. Many if not most Judges will deny any ex-parte application that does not state the information just mentioned. In fact in the author’s experience he has noticed that many Judges state that very fact in their listing of practices and procedures for their Courtroom.
Law that authorizes an application for an order shortening time for hearing in California.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005(b) states in pertinent part that, “The court, or a judge thereof, may prescribe a shorter time.”
California Rule of Court 3.1300(b) states that,
“The court, on its own motion or on application for an order shortening time supported by a declaration showing good cause, may prescribe shorter times for the filing and service of papers than the times specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. “
California law states that a party seeking an ex parte order must notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance unless a showing of exceptional circumstances justifying shorter notice is made. A declaration must be filed with the Court giving the details of when, and how notice was given to the opposing party. A proposed Order should also be submitted when the ex-parte documents are filed with the Court.
California Rule of Court 3.1203(a) states that, “A party seeking an ex parte order must notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances that justify a shorter time for notice.”
If you are in a situation where you need to obtain an order shortening time you should contact an experienced civil litigation attorney immediately as the local rules for each Court in California may be different. Additionally many individual Judges and Commissioners have their own rules requiring that telephonic notice be given to the Court clerk at a certain specified time, generally the day before the hearing, they may also require that a copy of the ex-parte application and all supporting documents, including the proposed order, be filed, and then given to the Court clerk at either the same time as the telephonic notice, or at another specified time.
An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine if the circumstances of your case entitle you to file an application for an order shortening time in California. Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.
Experienced civil litigation attorney in Southern California.
Schedule a free consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.
Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:
Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.