The summary judgment process in the California courts is undergoing significant changes as of the beginning of 2025. AB 2049 (effective January 1, 2025) marks the first major changes made to Code of Civil Procedure §437(c) in several decades. The new legislation affects motion timelines, successive motions, and briefing limitations. Though the bill was designed to streamline the litigation process, it is likely to complicate the litigation process for attorneys by front-loading the preparation needed to participate in the summary judgment process.
Longer Notice Periods for Summary Judgment and Adjudication Motions
AB 2049 lengthens the notice period for filing and responding to summary judgment motions. Now, summary judgment motions will need to be filed 81 days in advance of the hearing date, rather than 75. Oppositions are now due 20 days before the hearing date, and reply briefs are due 11 days before the hearing.
These extended deadlines are designed to give judges more time to evaluate motions after replies are filed. Whether the extra time will result in more summary judgment motions being granted remains to be seen.
Strict Limit on Successive Summary Judgment Motions
Parties are now limited to one summary judgment motion per case, unless the trial court grants them permission to file a second summary judgment motion. But the process of obtaining leave to file a second motion requires the presentation of the fully prepared motion. Thus, parties unsuccessful on a summary judgment motion will be required to devote substantial effort and incur substantial expense just to ask to do so. To avoid this burden, attorneys are well advised to delay the bringing of summary judgment motions until later in the litigation process to ensure they present the very best arguments. Unfortunately, due to court congestion and most courts hearing a single summary judgment motion per day, the filing of a summary judgment motion will almost invariably result in a trial continuance.
Though some courts had previously allowed parties to file multiple motions, it is now universally the rule that a party may only file a second summary judgment if the party is able to obtain the court's permission. This requirement means that attorneys will need to anticipate opposing arguments and present their entire case initially to maximize their chances of being granted summary judgment in their one crack at it.
While a party is limited to one motion for summary judgment, there are no such limits placed on summary adjudication motions. As such, are we likely to see a proliferation of cases being adjudicated piecemeal through countless adjudication motions? If so, won't this likely lead to even more paperwork for the parties, burdens on the court, and ultimately delay?
Restrictions on New Evidence in Reply Briefs
New facts and evidence may no longer be introduced in reply briefs under AB 2049. This resolves the inconsistency we've seen from court-to-court, with some courts allowing the introduction of new evidence in some situations and other courts never allowing new evidence to be introduced in reply briefs. With these changes, attorneys must be vigilant to include all relevant evidence in their initial motion.
Key Takeaways
The codification of AB 2049 is aimed at making the courts move more efficiently, promoting clarity, and ensuring thoroughness in the briefing process throughout litigation. The extended filing deadlines, limitations on the number of summary judgment motions allowed, and prohibiting the introduction of new evidence in reply briefs may encourage this streamlining of the litigation process. However, it's also possible that, as attorneys adjust to the new process, there may be new complications that emerge because of what has been left out of the bill.
With limitations on successive motions, attorneys must present all relevant evidence and arguments in their initial filings, anticipating potential counterarguments and evidence from opposing parties. Additionally, cases should be carefully evaluated to determine the best strategy for meeting clients' needs in each case. Though attorneys can plan for dealing with fewer summary judgments, they may find their workloads drastically increased by an onslaught of summary adjudication motions.
Attorneys should carefully evaluate the strategic implications of the new summary judgment rules on each of their cases and how these new rules will affect their ability to help their clients.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
