California courts will implement significant changes to the summary judgment process starting January 1, 2025. Assembly Bill (AB) 2049, signed into law earlier this year by Gavin Newsom, introduces the first major update to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c in twenty years. These updates affect motion timelines, successive motions, and briefing limitations requiring attorneys to adjust their strategies accordingly.
Extended Notice Periods for Summary Judgment and Adjudication Motions Filed On January 1, 2025 Or After
AB 2049 adjusts the timeline for filing and responding to summary judgment and summary adjudication motions. Before the change motions and supporting documents had to be served at least 75 days before the hearing, with oppositions due 14 days before, and replies 5 days before. Under the revised rules:
- Motions and supporting papers must now be served at least 81 days before the hearing.
- Opposition briefs will be due 20 days before the hearing.
- Reply briefs will be due 11 days before the hearing.
Proponents of the bill, including the California Judges Association, California Defense Counsel, and the Conference of California Bar Associations, believe these changes will give judges more time to evaluate motions after replies are filed.
Limits on Successive Summary Judgment Motions
The new law codifies the rule that parties are limited to one summary judgment motion, unless they obtain a court order granting a subsequent motion upon a showing of good cause. While many courts already follow this practice, it is now explicitly part of the statute.
Importantly, AB 2049 does not limit the number of summary adjudication motions a party may bring. This distinction allows litigants to address specific claims or issues as new evidence arises without violating the one-motion limitation.
Restrictions on New Evidence in Reply Briefs
AB 2049 also prohibits introducing new facts or evidence in reply briefs, resolving a longstanding split among California courts. While some courts previously allowed replies to include new evidence under specific circumstances, such as addressing gaps raised on oppositions, the new law codifies a stricter approach.
Key Takeaways
- Extended Filing Deadlines give courts more time to review motions and responses. This additional time should afford judges more time to deliberate and reason through the arguments before making a ruling, benefiting all parties involved.
- Parties are restricted to one summary judgment motion unless they can demonstrate good cause for filing additional motions. This should reduce excessive filings and streamline the litigation process. The presence of an exception for new evidence also ensures litigants have a fair opportunity to thoroughly present their case when new facts surface later.
- Codifying the prohibition against introducing new evidence in replies formalizes a rule that many courts have already instituted as a standard practice. This provides greater certainty for opposing parties, effectively eliminating the risk of new evidence being introduced without affording the other party adequate time to respond.
- Attorneys must adapt to the updated timelines and restrictions and change their practice accordingly. With fewer opportunities to seek summary judgment, strategic planning is more critical than ever.
Conclusion
For the first time in twenty years, California's legislature has instituted meaningful updates to the states' summary judgment rules under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. While the changes may appear unremarkable, they are geared to improve efficiency, clarity and encourage thoroughness and professionalism in legal practice. Attorneys and their clients must be mindful of the new requirements as they adapt to these statutory updates in the new year.
The full text of the bill may be found here: AB2049.