After 45 years trying cases in California courts, I’ve seen strong cases derailed not by weak facts or bad witnesses, but by procedural deadlines that caught good lawyers off guard. Timing in civil litigation is not a formality. It’s strategy, and missing it can be catastrophic.
Today I want to talk about two motion deadlines: California’s anti-SLAPP motion window and the summary judgment cutoff. Understanding these isn’t just about avoiding malpractice, it’s about shaping the battlefield before trial even begins.
The Anti-SLAPP Motion: A Weapon with a Short Fuse
California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16) is one of the most powerful early-case tools available to defendants in litigation involving protected speech or petitioning activity. If it applies, it can kill a complaint in its tracks and entitle the defendant to attorney’s fees.
Plaintiffs’ counsel, and some defense lawyers often miss that the defense must move within 60 days of service of the complaint, unless the court grants an extension for good cause, or the tool is gone along with the automatic discovery stay it triggers.
I have seen defendants lose six-figure fee awards simply because their original counsel didn’t spot the anti-SLAPP issue until the 61st day. Don’t let that happen to you or your client.
Summary Judgment: The Federal Trap
In federal court under Rule 56, a motion for summary judgment may be filed at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery — unless the local rules say otherwise. And they often do. Central District of California’s Local Rule 56-1 imposes its own layer of requirements, including a separate statement of uncontroverted facts that, if done sloppily, can doom an otherwise meritorious motion.
In California state court, CCP § 437c requires that the motion be heard no later than 30 days before trial. The notice of motion and supporting papers must be served on all other parties to the action at least 81 days before the hearing date. If the notice is served by mail, the required 81-day period of notice is increased by 5 days; if the opposing party’s address is outside California, the 81-day period of notice is increased by 10 days. If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 81-day period of notice is increased by two court days.
I run a case calendar from day one that works backward from trial. If summary judgment is going to be part of my strategy, I make the decision at the outset, not six months into discovery when the window is closing.
The Bigger Lesson: Procedure Is Strategy
Every procedural rule exists for a reason, and every deadline is an opportunity for the attorney who plans ahead — or a trap for the one who doesn’t. Whether you’re litigating wrongful termination, insurance bad faith, or a complex commercial dispute, the lawyer who controls the procedural timeline controls the pace and pressure of the case.
In my experience trying almost 200 trials, the cases that settle favorably before the courthouse steps often do so because strategic motions that were filed at the right time forced the other side to reassess their position.
If you are involved in civil litigation in California and want experienced counsel who understands both the substantive law and the procedural chess game, I invite you to reach out.
Call (714) 673-6500 or visit juryattorney.com/contact-us/ to schedule a consultation.
