There are substantial amendments to the California Rules of Court effective July 1, 2010. These amendments affect the Criminal, Family, Appellate and Judicial Administration Rules. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/amendments.htm.

The California Judicial Council has made changes to the following California Rules of Court effective July 1, 2009: 

By Order Dated April 24, 2009:

Rule 1.31. Mandatory forms ……………………………………………………………………….. 3
Rule 2.260. Electronic service …………………………………………………………………….. 3
Rule 3.50. Application of rules ……………………………………………………………………. 4
Rule 3.51. Method of application and filing of papers ……………………………………. 4
Rule 3.52. Eligibility ………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Rule 3.53 Verification of financial condition ………………………………………………… 5
Rule 3.54. Determination without regard to pleading or paper submitted for filing  6
Rule 3.55. Effect of denial of application; time for payment of fees ………………… 6
Rule 3.52 3.56. Procedure for determining application …………………………………… 7
Rule 3.53 3.57. Application granted unless acted on by the court ……………………. 8
Rule 3.58. Hearing on application ……………………………………………………………….. 8
Rule 3.59. Changed circumstances ………………………………………………………………. 9
Rule 3.54 3.60. Confidentiality ………………………………………………………………….. 10
Rule 3.55 3.61. Court fees and costs included in all initial fee waivers waived by initial application 11
Rule 3.56 3.62. Additional court fees and costs that may be included in initial fee waiver waived  11
Rule 3.57. Amount of lien for waived fees and costs ……………………………………. 12
Rule 3.58 3.63. Posting notice …………………………………………………………………… 12
Rule 5.175. Bifurcation of issues ……………………………………………………………….. 13
Rule 8.26. Waiver of fees and costs ……………………………………………………………. 13
Rule 8.100. Filing the appeal …………………………………………………………………….. 15
Rule 8.122. Clerk’s transcript ……………………………………………………………………. 18
Rule 8.128. Superior court file instead of clerk’s transcript …………………………… 18
Rule 8.486. Petitions ………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Rule 8.818. Waiver of fees and costs ………………………………………………………….. 20
Rule 8.821. Notice of appeal ……………………………………………………………………… 22
Rule 8.832. Clerk’s transcript ……………………………………………………………………. 24
Rule 8.833. Trial court file instead of clerk’s transcript ………………………………… 24
Rule 8.860. Normal record on appeal …………………………………………………………. 25
Rule 8.862. Preparation of clerk’s transcript ……………………………………………….. 25
Rule 8.863. Trial court file instead of clerk’s transcript ………………………………… 26
Rule 8.869. Statement on appeal ………………………………………………………………… 26
Rule 8.916. Statement on appeal ………………………………………………………………… 27
Rule 8.1010. Record on transfer ………………………………………………………………… 27
Rule 8.1105. Publication of appellate opinions ……………………………………………. 28

By Order dated February 25, 2009:  Rule 9.80. Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions

By Order Dated October 24, 2008:

Rule 3.865. Application and purpose …………………………………………………… 99
Rule 3.866. Definitions ……………………………………………………………………. 100
Rule 3.867.3.866. Designation of person to receive inquiries
and complaints Complaint coordinator …………………………………………….. 101
Rule 3.868.3.865. Complaint procedure required …………………………………. 102
Rule 3.869. General requirements for complaint procedures
and complaint proceedings …………………………………………………………….. 102
Rule 3.870. Permissible court actions on complaints …………………………… 105
Rule 3.871.3.867. Confidentiality of complaint procedures
proceedings, information, and records ……………………………………………… 106
Rule 3.872.3.868. Disqualification from subsequently serving as
an adjudicator ……………………………………………………………………………….. 108
Rule 3.890 3.870. Application ………………………………………………………….. 109
Rule 3.891 3.871. Actions subject to mediation ………………………………….. 109
Rule 3.892 3.872. Panels of mediators ………………………………………………. 109
Rule 3.893 3.873. Selection of mediators …………………………………………… 109
Rule 3.894 3.874. Attendance, participant lists, and mediation statements 109
Rule 3.896 3.876. Coordination with Trial Court Delay Reduction Act …. 110
Rule 3.897 3.877. Statistical information …………………………………………… 110
Rule 3.898 3.878. Educational material ……………………………………………… 110
Rule 10.781. Court-related ADR neutrals…………………………………………… 110

For information updated in real time regarding drafting, filing and serving specific litigation documents, including all applicable statutes and rules, and local rules, please visit SmartRules’ California Coverage. 

le

Effective March 10, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California has adopted an amendment to Local Bankruptcy Rule 5005-1, Electronic Record is the Official Record; Filing of Documents, to provide that documents submitted in electronic form via the Court’s Electronic Case Files System shall be deemed filed as of the date and time stated on the Notice of Electronic Filing issued by the Clerk, without regard to whether such documents are submitted on a court day or non-court day.

Effective March 10, 2009, the Court has made changes to its Electronic Filing System.

Additional information is available at:  http://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/whatnew/whatsnew.asp.

On March 26, 2009, the Supreme Court approved proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Many of the proposed amendments change timing requirements and the way in which deadlines are calculated.  Other amendments affect other aspects of civil procedure in the United States District Courts.  Regarding these changes, the Judicial Conference Report states: 

• The proposed amendment to Rule 13 deletes subdivision (f), which sets out standards for amending pleadings to add a counterclaim. The subdivision is redundant of Rule 15, which sets out standards for amending pleadings in general. The proposed change codifies courts’ practice
  of applying uniform standards to the amendment of pleadings.
• The proposed amendment to Rule 15(a) limits the time when a party may amend a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required once as a matter of course. The proposal eliminates the distinction drawn by present Rule 15(a), under which a responsive pleading
  immediately cuts off the right to amend, while a Rule 12 motion does not cut off the right and prolongs the time to amend a pleading until the motion is resolved. Significant problems can arise when a party files an amended pleading as a matter of right on the eve of a court’s ruling on
  a dispositive Rule 12 motion. Under the proposed amendment, a party may file an amended pleading without leave of court within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a Rule 12 motion, whichever is earlier. After that, a party may file an amended pleading only with leave of court.
• The proposed amendment to Rule 48 adds a provision similar to that in corresponding Criminal Rule 31 that allows a court to poll the jury individually on its own and requires a poll at a party’s request.
• Proposed new Rule 62.1 is integrated with the parallel proposed new Appellate Rule 12.1. Proposed Rule 62.1 codifies and makes consistent practices followed in almost all circuits when a motion is made regarding a matter that the district court is in a better position to determine than the court of appeals, but the district court judge cannot rule on the motion because an appeal has been filed and jurisdiction invested in the court of appeals. The district court may defer ruling, deny the motion, or either indicate that it would be inclined to grant the motion if the case were remanded (the so-called indicative ruling) or state that the motion raises a substantial issue. Requests for indicative rulings typically arise when a party files a Rule 60(b) motion after an appeal has been filed. The procedure facilitates cooperation between the district court and the court of appeals, enabling them to determine whether it is better to decide the appeal before deciding the motion. A party must notify the court of appeals if the district court states that it would grant the postjudgment motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue.
• The proposed amendment to Rule 81 clarifies the definition of “state” to include not only the District of Columbia but also any United States commonwealth or territory.

For up to date information regarding the effect of these changes on litigation practice, see the following SmartRules Guides:  Regarding Rule 13, Counterclaims and Cross-Claims.  Regarding Rule 15, Amended Complaint and Amended Answer.  In addition to the links to the SmartRules Guides provided here, SmartRules Guides provide coverage for the most commonly filed litigation documents in most United States District Court jurisdictions.

Some of the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that are slated to be effective December 1, 2009 will change various timing requirements and how some deadlines are calculated. Although the amendments are intended to simplify deadline calculations, it is hard to imagine changes that are more likely to cause lawyers to experience fear and trepidation.  But there is no need to worry.  The SmartRules Guides will have updated and correct information regarding timing, and all other aspects of filing litigation documents in United States District Courts.

Following is an excerpt from the Report of the Judical Conference regarding the Time Compution Project that led to the amendments regarding time periods and calculation of deadlines:

“The principal simplifying change in the amended time-computation rules is the adoption of a “days-are-days” approach to computing all time periods. Under some of the current rules, intermediate weekends and holidays are omitted when computing short periods but included when computing longer periods. By contrast, under the proposed rules amendments, intermediate weekends and holidays are counted regardless of the length of the specified period. Other changes in the amended time-computation rules clarify how to count forward when the period measured is after an event (for example, 21 days after service of a motion) and the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday; and how to count backward when the period measured is before an event (for example, 14 days before a scheduled hearing) and the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday. The proposed amendments also provide for computing hourly time periods, to address recent legislation affecting court proceedings in which deadlines are expressed in hours (for example, 72 hours for action).

The amended time-computation rules also fill a gap in the present rules by addressing the special timing considerations that accompany electronic filing. Under the proposed amendments, unless a statute, local rule, or court order provides otherwise, the last day of a period for an electronic filing ends at midnight in the court’s time zone, while the last day for a paper filing ends when the clerk’s office is scheduled to close. (Additional refinements to these principles are made in proposed Appellate Rule 26(a)(4) for reasons specific to appellate practice.) Filing deadlines are extended if the clerk’s office is inaccessible. The proposed amendments provide a court with flexibility to define when a deadline should be adjusted or a failure to comply with a deadline should be excused because the clerk’s office was “inaccessible.” The proposed amendments and the Committee Notes do not specify the meaning of “inaccessibility,” which can vary depending on whether a filing is electronic or paper, leaving the definition to local rules and case law development.

The advisory committees also reviewed every rule to ensure that all time periods would be reasonable taking into account the effect of changing the time-computation method. The advisory committees concluded that virtually all short time deadlines should be extended to adjust for the effect of including intermediate weekends and holidays in calculating deadlines. To further simplify time-counting, the advisory committees proposed changing most periods of less than 30 days to multiples of 7 days. The advisory committees adopted 7, 14, 21, and 28-day periods when possible, so that deadlines will usually fall on weekdays. The advisory committees’ comprehensive review of time-computation rules and the rules containing time periods resulted in proposed amendments to a total of 91 rules. In August 2007, proposed amendments to each set of rules were published for comment from the bench and bar. Scheduled public hearings on the amendments were canceled because no one asked to testify. The specific proposed amendments are discussed later in this report in the respective sections describing the advisory committees’ recommendations.”

So what exactly is changing? With respect to timing, the following amendments have been approved, effective March 26, 2009, by the Supreme Court. 

• The one-day period in Rule 6(c)(2) becomes seven days. The adjustment would extend the time for a party to serve any affidavit opposing a motion to seven days before a hearing.
• The one-day period in Rule 54(d) becomes 14 days. The increased time period corrects an unrealistic short time period for the clerk to give notice before taxing costs.
• The three-day period in Rule 55 becomes seven days.
• Five-day periods in Rules 32, 54, and 81 become seven days.
• The five-day period in Rule 6(c)(1) becomes 14 days. The adjustment extends the time for a party to serve a written motion and notice of hearing before the scheduled hearing date.
• Ten-day periods in Rules 12, 14, 15, 23, 38, 59(c), 62, 65, 68, 72, 81, and Supplemental Rule C become 14 days.
• Ten-day periods in Rules 50, 52, and 59(b), (d), and (e) become 28-day periods. The adjustment extends the present inadequate time allowed to prepare and file postjudgment motions. To prevent unfair results from these unrealistic short time periods, courts have avoided the rule by delaying entry of judgment or permitting timely filing of a barebones motion but permitting the brief to expand the stated grounds.
• The less-than-11-day period in Rule 32 becomes less than 14 days.
• Twenty-day periods in Rules 12, 15, 27, 53, 71.1, 81, Forms 3, 4, and 60, and Supplemental Rules B, C and G become 21 days.
• Rule 6(b)’s reference to provisions for extending the times set by enumerated provisions in Rules 50, 52, 59, and 60, and Rule 59(c)’s reference to a 20-day extension are eliminated.
• The timing provisions in Rules 56(a) and (c) are replaced by new provisions that recognize authority to set deadlines for summary-judgment motions by local rule or by court order and, in default of a local rule or court order, that allow a motion to be made at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery. The new provisions also establish default times for response and reply.

For up to date information regarding timing requirements for pleadings, discovery responses, motions and other litigation documents, visit SmartRules.