Pre-2009 Changes You should be aware of several changes to codes, rules, and forms instituted prior to January 2009. An attempt has been made to present them in the order in which they would arise during a case. Reorganization/Renumbering of Rules. The California Rules of Court have been completely reorganized; every rule number has changed. Use this conversion table: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/  to identify the new rule. Format of Papers. Inclusion of a fax number and email address on pleadings, etc., filed with the court is no longer optional. It is now required if the number/address "is available." (C.R.C., Rule 2.111) Summons. The court clerk now retains the original summons. (C.C.P. §412.10) You no longer need to resubmit it to the clerk when you request entry of default. Electronic Filing and Service. This area presents new vocabulary ("electronic service provider," "electronic filer," "electronic notification address") and continuously evolving procedure varying from court to court. Be sure to familiarize yourself with C.R.C., Rules 2.250 and 2.260 before you embark upon either electronic filing or electronic service. For electronic filing, check your local rules to determine if they accept electronic filing in your type of case, and how you do it, e.g., directly with the court, or through an electronic service provider. Collections Cases. New C.R.C., Rule 3.740 creates "Collections Cases." They are actions for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain, not exceeding $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorneys fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit, and which does not seek tort or punitive damages, recovery of real or personal property or a prejudgment writ of attachment. Rule 3.740 exempts Collections Cases from the statutory deadlines for filing Proof of Service of Summons and obtaining default judgment, and establishes different deadlines. Proof of Service. Proof of Service in a multi-party case must identify the party represented. (C.R.C., Rule 1.21(c)) The first named plaintiff is required to maintain fax lists in all cases where the parties have agreed to accept service by fax, and all parties are required to serve the list along with any order, notice or pleading on a party who has not yet appeared (C.R.C., Rule 3.254) There are now four optional Judicial Council proof of service forms. The multi-purpose POS-040 is particularly useful. Regular Motions. Filing and service deadlines for regular motions are (since January 2005) as follows: Notice of motion must be filed at least 16 COURT days prior to the hearing. Oppositions must be filed and served at least 9 COURT days prior to the hearing. Replies to oppositions to regular motions must be filed and served at least 5 COURT days prior to the hearing. Oppositions and replies must be served in a manner so as to be received by the end of the next business day. (C.C.P. §1005(b)) Telephone appearances. Appearance by telephone is now favored. Intent to appear telephonically may be indicated in the moving, opposing, or reply papers. It may be arranged up to three court days (instead of five court days) before the hearing. A party receiving notice of another party’s intent to appear by by telephone may give notice of intent to appear by telephone by noon on the court day before the hearing. (C.R.C., Rule 3.670) Motions for Summary Judgment ("MSJ’s") and Summary Adjudication ("MSA’s"). Very significant changes have been made to MSJ’s and MSA’s: The deadline to file objections to evidence on MSJ’S and MSA’S has changed. They now must be submitted with the opposition and/or reply (as opposed to the prior rule, which allowed filing as late as three court days prior to the hearing). (C.R.C., Rule 3.1354(a)) Objections must follow a specific format. (C.R.C., Rule 3.1354(b)) Objections must be accompanied by a proposed order, which must follow a specific format. (C.R.C., Rule 3.1354(c)) The mandatory format for separate statements for MSJ's and MSA's has changed. (C.R.C., Rule 3.1350(h)) It would be so easy to violate these rules! All you have to do is rely on your prior rusty knowledge, your rusty form file, and, if you don’t use rules-based computerized calendaring, your equally rusty calendaring "cheat sheet." If, for example, without first checking for procedural changes, you pull a response to motion for summary judgment from your form file to use as a template, you would draft your objections to evidence in an improper format. You would also either fail to submit a proposed order at all, or draft it in an improper format. Then, if you calendar your deadlines by hand, and you use your outdated calendaring "cheat sheet," you would top it all off by filing your evidentiary objections too late. If objections to evidence are not timely filed, or are not presented in the proper format, the trial court may ignore them. (See, for example, Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1278, in which the court, citing Rule 3.1354(b), noted that "[t]he form of the [responding party’s objections to evidence] was improper and the trial court may not have ruled on those objections." As a result, the possibly objectionable evidence is part of the record on appeal. Could this constitute malpractice? * * * [NOTE:  The changes mentioned in this article have been compiled from cover memos sent to Litigation By The Numbers®-Fourth Edition Update Service subscribers over the past few years.  (For price and ordering information, click here.)  By no means does this article purport to identify all changes. You may review all changes to the California Rules of Court instituted since April 2005 by going to http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/amendments.htm. Recent Judicial Council form changes may be viewed here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/latest.htm.]