mycase Change Language

CARC 3.1320(J) VS. CCP 471.5(A)


There has long been confusion among the legal community as to the application of California Rules of Court 3.1320(j) and California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 471.5(a)as they relate to the time a defendant has to respond to a complaint following the courts decision to sustain its demurrer.

California Rules of Court 3.1320(j) states: Unless otherwise ordered, defendant has 10 days to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint or the remaining causes of action following:

  1. The overruling of the demurrer;
  2. The expiration of the time to amend if the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend; or
  3. The sustaining of the demurrer if the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend

Learn More On Demurrer

California Code of Civil Procedure § 471.5(a) states: If the complaint is amended, a copy of the amendments shall be filed, or the court may, in its discretion, require the complaint as amended to be filed, and a copy of the amendments or amended complaint must be served upon the defendants affected thereby. The defendant shall answer the amendments, or the complaint as amended, within 30 days after service thereof, or such other time as the court may direct, and judgment by default may be entered upon failure to answer, as in other cases. For the purposes of this subdivision, “complaint” includes a cross-complaint, and “defendant” includes a person against whom a cross-complaint is filed.

The rules and the statue conflict with one another since the rules of court state that, the defendant has 10 days to respond to the complaint or the remaining causes of actions if the demurrer has been sustained, yet the code states that the defendant would have 30 days to respond.

Recently the California Court of Appeal in Scott Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1200 shed some light on these two seemingly conflicting rules. The court held, that if the demurrer has been sustained and the court grants the plaintiff leave to amend his/her complaint, then CCP 471.5 applies and the defendant has 30 days to respond to the amended complaint. For practical purposes it seems that if the court sustains defendants’ demurrer against plaintiff complaint as to several but not all causes of actions and does grant plaintiff leave to amend its complaint, and plaintiff chooses not to amend the complaint with respect to those causes of actions that the court did sustain the demurrer against, then the defendant has only 10 days to respond to the remaining causes of action in plaintiff’s original complaint. However, as mentioned above if plaintiff chooses to fully amend its complaint, then defendants would have 30 days to respond to the complaint.

Civil litigation has many nuances that could make or break a plaintiffs case. For this reasons it is important to have an experienced civil litigation attorney by your side when navigating the court system to ensure your rights are being protected and your case is not thrown out of court based on technicalities. Attorney Omid Rejali, Esq and the Rejali Law Firm staff are experienced in the area of civil litigation and will make sure your rights are protected in all San Diego court proceedings. If you are considering a lawsuit or are already involved in a lawsuit and are looking for an experienced litigation firm, contact us for your FREE and Confidential consultation to make sure your rights are being protected.


San Diego Immigration Law Firm San Diego Civil Litigation Lawyer immigrationlaw californiaprop47 deporation sandiegocriminallawyer californiadruglaw deportation San Diego Immigration Lawyer DUI San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer liability negligence San Diego Personal Injury Lawyer litigation immigration lawsuit sandiegoimmigrationlawyer cancellation of removal moral character sdpd 5thamendment criminaldefense. san diego sandiegodeportationlawyer sandiegotrialattorneys GIA Gemologicalinstituteofamerica alter-ego corporation. privilege injury appeals NSA Patriot Act. personal injury attorney torts duty breach CANRA child abuse e-2 visa investment visa u.s. immigration lawyer u.s. investment lawyer business immigration San Diego Immigration Lawyer Immigration Lawyer asylum green card immigrant visa citizensarrest capenalcode837 4th Amendment litigation civil rights UCSD regents of the university of california unruh act greencardholder Sb-1visa re-entrypermit Mission Valley Criminal Defense Lawyer Vehicle Code 23612 san diego criminal lawyer blood blood sample Birchfield v. North Dakota Constitution Corpus Delicti DUI Defense San Diego DUI Defense malpractice civil rights Immigration Law Constitutional Law crime of violence DHS deportation proceedings appellate review civil appeals removal proceedings deportation. Criminal Defense Sixth Amendment Trial Lawyer immigration deportation vacating conviction relief personal injury new case law alert medical expenses doctors on liens Disability Disability rights 504 Rehabilitation Act ADA ADA 504 Rehabilitation Act Disability rights Disability Regents; Unruh Civil Rights Act search and seizure automobile exception slip and fall collisions denial of claim insurance denial. valuation of claim personal injury. 5th Amendment United States Supreme Court right against self-incrimination. mcdonalds san diego. Travel Ban President Trump U.S. Supreme Court Trump v. Hawaii trial direct examination witnesses Jameson v. Desta California Supreme Court Decision Equal Access San Diego County Court reporters objections interrogatories fraud default judgment motion to set aside default judgment due process personal jurisdiction discovery company car crash reports discovery trial personal injury damages witnesses settlement; trial lawyer; San Diego trial lawyers; personal injury lawyers; San Diego injury lawyers San Diego Injury Lawyer san diego trial lawyer san diego trial attorney san diego jury trial lawyer san diego trial lawyer San Diego Injury Lawyer san diego civil trial lawyer hot coffee burn injury second degree burns how to pick your attorney insurance value car accident