California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(d) – Time for Filing Responsive Pleadings
Free Consultation Request
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(d) – Time for Filing Responsive Pleadings
California Law
(d) Timing of responsive pleadings
The parties may stipulate without leave of court to one 15-day extension beyond the 30-day time period prescribed for the response after service of the initial complaint.
Rule 3.110 amended effective July 1, 2007; adopted as rule 201.7 effective July 1, 2002; previously amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007.
California Law Summary
This rule mandates that a plaintiff must serve all named defendants and file proof of service within a specified timeframe. Specifically, it states that:
The plaintiff must serve all named defendants and file proof of service with the court within 60 days after the complaint is filed.
Understanding CRC 3.110(d): Text and Purpose
What does Rule 3.110(d) say? The text of California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(d) is concise: “The parties may stipulate without leave of court to one 15-day extension beyond the 30-day time period prescribed for the response after service of the initial complaint.”courts.ca.gov
In plain English, this means that after a defendant is served with an initial complaint in a civil case, the plaintiff and defendant can agree (stipulate) on their own to extend the defendant’s deadline to respond by up to 15 days beyond the normal 30 days, and they do not need to ask the court’s permission for this first brief extension.
Purpose of the rule 3.110
The purpose of CRC 3.110(d) is to balance fairness and efficiency in litigation. On one hand, it acknowledges that defendants sometimes need a bit more time to prepare a response (for example, to hire an attorney or investigate the claims) and encourages professional courtesy by allowing a short, automatic extension if both sides agree. On the other hand, by limiting this extension to 15 days and only once, the rule prevents excessive delays. This ensures that cases progress in a timely manner, which benefits the court system and all parties by moving the litigation forward without unnecessary hold-ups courts.ca.gov.
In essence, CRC 3.110(d) is meant to promote cooperation between parties for minor scheduling issues, while still keeping strict overall deadlines so that a lawsuit doesn’t stall indefinitely.
Application
The purpose of CRC 3.110(d) is to balance fairness and efficiency in litigation. On one hand, it acknowledges that defendants sometimes need a bit more time to prepare a response (for example, to hire an attorney or investigate the claims) and encourages professional courtesy by allowing a short, automatic extension if both sides agree. On the other hand, by limiting this extension to 15 days and only once, the rule prevents excessive delays. This ensures that cases progress in a timely manner, which benefits the court system and all parties by moving the litigation forward without unnecessary hold-ups courts.ca.gov.
In essence, CRC 3.110(d) is meant to promote cooperation between parties for minor scheduling issues, while still keeping strict overall deadlines so that a lawsuit doesn’t stall indefinitely.
Why 15 days?
In California civil procedure, a defendant normally must serve a “responsive pleading” (such as an answer, demurrer, or motion to challenge the complaint) within 30 days after being served with the summons and complaint (this 30-day deadline is set by statute in most cases).
Rule 3.110(d) adds that a single extension of 15 days can be given by stipulation. This typically results in a total of 45 days from service for the defendant’s response when such an extension is utilized. The 15-day duration was chosen as a reasonable short extension that can be granted without court oversight. Any longer delay would require obtaining a court order under subdivision (e) of the rule (discussed below), thereby giving a judge oversight if the extension goes beyond a quick accommodation.
Key takeaway
CRC 3.110(d) effectively creates a one-time, short extension “by right” that the parties can use on their own. Its purpose is to encourage a small measure of flexibility and professional courtesy in the litigation timeline, without undermining the overall fast progression of the case mandated by the California Rules of Court and civil procedure deadlines
Rule 3.110 in Context: How Subdivision (d) Fits into California Civil Procedure
Rule 3.110(d) is just one part of Rule 3.110, which is a comprehensive rule dealing with service of pleadings and timing in the early phase of a civil case. To understand how 3.110(d) fits in, it helps to see the big picture of Rule 3.110 and its role in California civil procedure:
- Application of Rule 3.110: Subdivision (a) clarifies that Rule 3.110 applies to most general civil cases, but excludes certain case types that have their own special timelines (for example, collection cases, unlawful detainer (evictions), and Family Code proceedings are exempt because those have different service requirements) courts.ca.gov. In a typical civil lawsuit (like personal injury or contract disputes), Rule 3.110 sets the standard deadlines for serving the complaint and receiving responses.
- Service of the Complaint – 60 Days: Subdivision (b) of Rule 3.110 requires that the plaintiff serve the summons and complaint on all named defendants within 60 days of filing the complaint, and file the proofs of service with the court within that same 60-day period courts.ca.gov. If the plaintiff amends the complaint later to add new defendants, those new defendants must be served within 30 days of the amended complaint being filed courts.ca.gov. This provision pushes plaintiffs to promptly notify defendants of the lawsuit rather than dragging their feet.
- Service of Cross-Complaints: Subdivision (c) addresses cross-complaints (when a defendant files a complaint against new parties or against the plaintiff). If the cross-complaint is against someone already in the case, it must come with a proof of service at the time of filing (meaning you’ve served it immediately). If the cross-complaint brings in new parties, it must be served on those new parties within 30 days of filing, and proof of service filed accordingly courts.ca.gov. This ensures any new parties are quickly brought into the loop.
- Time for Responsive Pleadings – 30 Days + One 15-Day Extension: Subdivision (d) (the focus of this article) then covers how much time defendants have to respond to the initial complaint. Normally, a defendant’s responsive pleading is due within 30 days after service (this 30-day period is specified by California statutes, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure §430.40 for demurrers or §412.20 for answers). CRC 3.110(d) adds that the parties can stipulate once to extend this response deadline by up to 15 days without needing court approval courts.ca.gov. This is the one-time courtesy extension discussed above. It’s important to note that this is only for the initial complaint’s response – responses to other pleadings might have different rules, and any further extensions beyond those 15 days require additional steps.
- Extensions Beyond the First 15 Days – Court Approval Required: Subdivision (e) of Rule 3.110 makes it clear that if more time is needed beyond what (b), (c), or (d) provide, a party must seek a court order to extend time. The court can, on its own motion or on a party’s request, extend or modify the deadlines in Rule 3.110(b)–(d) courts.ca.gov. However, a request for more time must be filed before the deadline has expired, and it needs to be supported by a declaration explaining why the deadline couldn’t be met and proposing a date by which the task (service of the complaint or filing a response) will be done courts.ca.gov. In practice, this means if a defendant knows they’ll need more than the extra 15 days to respond (perhaps due to complexity of the case or difficulties in obtaining counsel), the defendant should either get the plaintiff’s agreement and jointly file a stipulation and order for a longer extension (which the judge must sign), or file an ex parte or noticed motion asking the court for more time. Simply ignoring the deadline or assuming an informal agreement beyond 15 days is okay can be dangerous (as we’ll see below).
- Consequences for Missing Deadlines: Subdivision (f) warns that if a party fails to serve or file pleadings within the time required by Rule 3.110 (and hasn’t obtained a court-ordered extension), the court may issue an Order to Show Cause (OSC) – essentially a hearing where that party must explain why they should not be sanctioned for the delay courts.ca.gov. For example, if a plaintiff doesn’t serve the complaint on time, or a defendant doesn’t respond on time (and the plaintiff hasn’t done anything about it), the court can call them in and potentially impose penalties (like fines or even dismissal of the case or strike of the late pleading) if there isn’t a good excuse.
- Default for Failing to Respond: Subdivision (g) deals specifically with defendants who fail to respond in time. It states that if a responsive pleading isn’t served by the deadline (including the 15-day extension if used) and no extension was granted by the court, the plaintiff must file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the response deadline has passed courts.ca.gov. In other words, the rules expect the plaintiff to promptly pursue default judgment against a non-responsive defendant, rather than leaving the case hanging. If the plaintiff doesn’t timely request the default, the court may issue an OSC re: sanctions against the plaintiff for failing to move the case along courts.ca.gov. (This might seem surprising to clients, but in civil procedure the burden is on the plaintiff to advance the case – if the defendant doesn’t respond, the plaintiff must take the next step by seeking default, or risk court sanctions for delay.)
- Timeline for Default Judgment: Subdivision (h) continues the default scenario: once a default is entered against a defendant, the plaintiff has 45 days to obtain a default judgment (either by a court hearing or prove-up process) or to file a request for more time courts.ca.gov. If they miss that 45-day window without permission, again an OSC for sanctions can be issued. This ensures that even after a default, the case keeps moving toward resolution.
- Order to Show Cause Procedures: Finally, subdivision (i) just says that if an OSC is set under this rule, any written response to that OSC must be filed at least 5 calendar days before the hearing courts.ca.gov (so the judge has time to review the party’s explanation for the delay).
Rule 3.110 in Context: How Subdivision (d) Fits into California Civil Procedure
Understanding CRC 3.110(d) and its related rules is crucial for anyone involved in a civil lawsuit in California. Here are some practical implications and tips for attorneys, as well as insights for clients and law students, on how this rule plays out:
Professional Courtesy vs. Strict Deadlines: Attorneys often strive to be courteous to one another. For instance, if a defendant’s attorney asks for more time to respond to a complaint, it’s common for a plaintiff’s attorney to agree to a 15-day extension as allowed by CRC 3.110(d). This is seen as a professional courtesy and is explicitly permitted by the rule without needing a court order courts.ca.gov. However, attorneys must remember the limit: only one such extension can be given without court approval. If the defense needs more time beyond that (for example, an additional 30 days), both sides must either seek court approval for a further extension or understand that any further delay is at their own risk. A plaintiff’s lawyer should be cautious about agreeing to multiple extensions without a judge’s blessing – not only does Rule 3.110 forbid it without leave, but it could also jeopardize the plaintiff’s leverage (e.g., delaying the default process).
Avoiding Default (For Defendants): If you are a defendant or defense attorney, the rule means you effectively have 45 days from service (if personally served) to file a response if you obtain the standard stipulation for an extension. Use that time wisely. Mark the initial 30-day deadline and the extended 15-day deadline on your calendar. If you foresee needing more time (maybe you’re in the middle of settlement talks or gathering records), consider filing a request with the court for more time before the deadline passes courts.ca.gov. Otherwise, after day 45, the plaintiff can and likely will seek your default. Once you’re in default, you lose the ability to respond without getting the default set aside, which can be costly and tricky. In short, CRC 3.110(d) gives defendants a small safety valve, but not an indefinite one – timely action is critical.
Moving the Case Forward (For Plaintiffs): If you are a plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, Rule 3.110 and 3.110(d) put the onus on you to keep the case moving. You should serve defendants quickly (within 60 days) courts.ca.gov and file proof of service. If a defendant doesn’t respond within 30 days, you can graciously grant a short extension (and it’s often wise to do so for goodwill, assuming it doesn’t prejudice your client). But if the extended deadline passes with no answer or demurrer, you need to act promptly. The rules say you must pursue a default within 10 days after the lapsed deadline courts.ca.gov. In practice, courts may not penalize you immediately on day 11, but you shouldn’t procrastinate. Courts have noted that while an OSC for failing to seek default timely is possible, many judges “rarely impose” immediate sanctions for a slight delay plaintiffmagazine.com. Nevertheless, it’s good practice to be prepared to request default as soon as the window closes. This serves two purposes: maintaining pressure on the defendant and demonstrating to the court that you are diligently prosecuting the case.
One Extension Means One: It’s worth emphasizing to all parties that “one 15-day extension” means just one. We have seen situations where lawyers, especially those new to California practice, assume that multiple stipulations for extension are okay as long as both sides agree. Rule 3.110(d) is explicit that only one extension without court approval is allowed courts.ca.gov. If parties ignore this and keep extending time informally, they do so at peril. The plaintiff risks a judge questioning why a default wasn’t sought, and the defendant risks the plaintiff changing their mind and seeking a default suddenly because the rule technically entitled them to do so after the first extension. Additionally, a defendant who files a very late response (beyond the one extension) might face a motion to strike or a court refusing to consider their pleading as timely, absent a court order. In short, do not assume that just because both attorneys agree, the court will accept a late-filed answer or demurrer if it violates the rule.
Variability Among Courts: While the rule is statewide, enforcement can sometimes vary by judge or county. Some courts and individual judges are known to be strict about the “only one extension” rule – they expect either a timely response or a formal court-approved extension. Other judges might be more lenient if they see that both parties agreed to an extended timeline beyond the 15 days. For example, one attorney noted that “some courts are pretty strict on it, [and] some courts are not”, advising that it’s safest to abide by the rule and stick to the single 15-day extension unless you have a judge’s approval for more avvo.com. This means attorneys should know the tendencies of their local court and judge. When in doubt, err on the side of following the rule to the letter – get that stipulation filed with the court or file a motion if more time is needed, rather than relying on informal agreements.
Practical Example – Communication is Key: In practice, if a defendant’s lawyer asks for additional time, a prudent plaintiff’s lawyer might say: “I can give you 15 days per Rule 3.110(d) without an issue. If you need more, let’s do a stipulation and order and submit it to the court for approval.” This way, both sides protect themselves. From the defendant’s perspective, asking for an extension in writing (and documenting the agreement) is important. From the plaintiff’s perspective, if a defendant is unresponsive as a deadline nears, it’s wise to remind opposing counsel of the due date or check in. Not only is this collegial, but California courts have sometimes required a warning to defense counsel before taking a default, as a matter of professional courtesy (failure to warn could be a factor in setting aside a default in some cases, per older case law). So communication can save a lot of trouble – it’s better to agree on a schedule (and get court approval if needed) than to spring defaults or face sanctions.
Litigants and Clients: If you are a party to a lawsuit (client), be aware that these timing rules exist so your case doesn’t languish. For plaintiffs: your lawyer should be taking timely steps to serve the defendants and move for default or other actions if the defendant delays too long. For defendants: don’t be lulled into a false sense of security if the plaintiff is being accommodating. Even if your opponent’s lawyer is kind enough to give you extra time, the law limits how far that kindness can go without a judge stepping in. Always communicate with your attorney about any need for extensions and make sure they are properly documented. The worst case would be to assume an extension is in place when it’s not, and then find out you’ve been defaulted.
In summary, CRC 3.110(d) teaches that while California civil litigation has strict deadlines, there is a small built-in flexibility for one extension by agreement. Wise attorneys use that flexibility judiciously, and all parties should remain vigilant that after that, formal steps must be taken to avoid procedural penalties.
Recent Updates and Court Interpretations of Rule 3.110(d)
Has Rule 3.110(d) changed recently? No major recent updates have been made to the text of CRC 3.110(d) itself. The rule was last amended in 2007 (as part of a renumbering and amendments that took effect July 1, 2007) and has remained consistent since then. It was originally adopted in 2002 as part of a broader effort to tighten case management timelines. Since 2007, the California Rules of Court have not altered the substance of the one-15-day-extension provision. That means the rule’s requirements in 2025 are essentially the same as they have been for over a decade.
Examples: Applying Rule 3.110(d) in Real Scenarios
To illustrate how CRC 3.110(d) works, let’s walk through a few hypothetical scenarios (based on typical situations in civil litigation) and recent examples:
Example 1: One Extension in Action
Situation: Alice files a lawsuit (complaint) against Bob for a contract dispute. Alice files the complaint on June 1 and serves Bob with the summons and complaint on June 5. Bob’s deadline to respond would normally be 30 days from service – since he was personally served on June 5, the initial due date for an answer or demurrer is July 5. Bob’s attorney contacts Alice’s attorney on June 30 and says, “I need a bit more time to gather documents and talk to my client, can you give me until the end of July?” Alice’s attorney, knowing CRC 3.110(d), agrees to a 15-day extension but no more. They sign a stipulation (or at least confirm in writing) that Bob’s new deadline is July 20 (which is 15 days past July 5). No court order is needed for this, because the rule allows one stipulation up to 15 days courts.ca.gov. Come July 20, Bob’s attorney files and serves a response (say, an answer to the complaint). This response is considered timely, and the case proceeds without any issue. Alice does not seek a default because Bob responded within the agreed extended time. Result: This is a textbook use of CRC 3.110(d) – the parties cooperated within the rule’s allowance, giving the defendant a bit of breathing room while still keeping the case on track.
Example 2: Needing More Time – Going to Court
Situation: Same scenario, but suppose Bob’s attorney realized that even 15 extra days won’t be enough because Bob is out of the country or key records are missing. Bob’s attorney might ask for a 30-day extension instead of 15. Alice’s attorney, wanting to be cooperative but also knowing the rule, says, “I can’t just give you 30 days without involving the court. Let’s jointly ask the judge.” They draft a stipulation and [proposed] order for a 30-day extension to the response time, and submit it to the court before the original deadline (July 5). In their papers, Bob’s side includes a declaration explaining why they need until August 5 (for example, Bob is traveling and unavailable to verify the answer, etc.). The court reviews this and, if the reason is good, signs the order granting the extension (this would be under Rule 3.110(e), allowing the court to extend time) courts.ca.gov. Now Bob’s deadline is August 5 by court order. If Bob answers by then, all is well. Practical note: Courts generally appreciate when parties seek extensions the proper way if more than 15 days is needed. It shows respect for the rules and keeps the judge in the loop. Getting a court-approved extension also protects both sides – neither can claim a violation of Rule 3.110 because the extension is officially sanctioned.
Example 3: Missing the Deadline and Consequences
Situation: Now consider if Bob’s attorney did not get a court order and also did not respond by the extended deadline. In Example 1, say Bob’s attorney and Alice’s attorney agreed to July 20, but July 20 passes with no answer, no demurrer, nothing filed by Bob. On July 21, Bob is in breach of the agreement and beyond even the extended time. Under CRC 3.110(g), Alice (the plaintiff) should now move quickly to request entry of Bob’s default, since the rule says to do so within 10 days of the missed deadline (i.e., by July 30) courts.ca.gov. Alice’s attorney files a request for default on July 25, for example. If Bob’s attorney tries to file an answer on July 28, it might be too late – if the default has already been entered by the clerk on July 26, then Bob’s answer won’t be accepted unless Bob gets the default set aside. The court might schedule an OSC against Alice if she doesn’t seek default by around that 10-day mark, but as a practical matter, attorneys note that judges often don’t issue sanctions immediately as long as the default is obtained reasonably promptly plaintiffmagazine.com. In this scenario, Bob’s failure to respond has serious consequences: he could be defaulted and potentially lose the case without ever presenting a defense, unless he makes a special motion to set aside the default (which requires showing a valid excuse under Code of Civil Procedure §473 or similar). Lesson: Defendants must not sleep on deadlines, and plaintiffs must follow up when defendants don’t respond. CRC 3.110(d) gave Bob one lifeline (which he squandered), and the rest of Rule 3.110 now pushes the case toward a default judgment to avoid indefinite delay.
Example 4: Multiple Extensions – The Risk
Situation: Let’s revisit Bob’s case with a twist: Bob’s attorney asks for a 15-day extension, which Alice’s side grants (new deadline July 20). On July 19, Bob’s attorney says, “We’re close to settling, can we have one more week? Actually, how about a month just to be safe?” Alice’s attorney, wanting to be cooperative, agrees via email to an additional 30-day extension, without going to court. Now, Bob’s new “agreed” deadline would be August 19. Come August 19, negotiations fall through and Bob still hasn’t responded. He files a demurrer on August 22 – effectively well past even the second extension. Alice’s attorney, tired of delays, opposes the late filing, pointing to CRC 3.110(d) which allowed only the first extension. The court, at the hearing, might cite the rule and note that after July 20, Bob was already in default territory. Because Alice’s side consented to the second extension, the court might inquire why they did so without a court order. Depending on the judge, two things could happen: (1) the judge, like in the real 2023 case example, reluctantly allows the late demurrer to be heard but admonishes Bob’s counsel for not following the rules rulings.law; or (2) the judge could outright refuse to consider the demurrer as untimely, potentially denying it purely on procedural grounds. In either outcome, Bob’s side is now on the back foot – their tactic created a risk of sanctions or default. Alice’s side might have also exposed themselves to a minor critique for not seeking default earlier, but generally courts won’t punish a plaintiff for being too lenient; their bigger concern is that the schedule wasn’t respected. Point illustrated: Multiple informal extensions can lead to confusion and danger. The rule exists to prevent exactly this scenario. The proper course would have been to get a court-approved extension for that second period. This example shows why savvy attorneys stick to one extension or involve the court beyond that.
Example 5: Failing to Serve the Complaint
Situation: Not directly about subdivision (d) but related context – suppose Alice filed her complaint on June 1, but by August 1 (two months later) she still hasn’t served Bob at all. Rule 3.110(b) gave her 60 days to serve courts.ca.gov. If she ignores this, she might receive a court notice or an Order to Show Cause around the time of her case management conference asking why the case shouldn’t be dismissed or sanctions imposed for failure to serve (pursuant to Rule 3.110(f)) courts.ca.gov. Alice’s attorney would then have to explain the delay (maybe Bob was evading service or they hired a process server who is still trying) and possibly request more time formally. If the explanation is reasonable, the court will usually give a new deadline rather than dismissing the case immediately, but possibly could impose a small sanction if the attorney simply neglected the task. This example underlines that Rule 3.110 is a two-edged sword – it pressures plaintiffs to act quickly at the outset just as it pressures defendants to respond quickly once served. Both sides have responsibilities.
Through these scenarios, it’s clear that CRC 3.110(d) and the related provisions are not mere formalities; they actively shape the timeline of a lawsuit. Attorneys must incorporate these deadlines into their case strategy from day one. Law students observing these examples can see how procedural rules translate into real-world litigation moves. And clients can understand why their lawyers might be rushing to meet a deadline or insisting on filing something by a certain date – often, it’s about complying with rules like 3.110 to protect the client’s position. The overarching theme is timing is critical in civil litigation, and Rule 3.110 (especially subdivision (d)) is one of the key rules enforcing timeliness in California courts.
Conclusion: Compliance with CRC 3.110(d) and How Impact Attorneys Can Help
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(d) may seem like a small procedural detail, but it has a significant impact on how lawsuits are managed in the early stages. By capping any stipulation for extra time to respond at 15 days, it keeps cases moving and ensures that plaintiffs and defendants alike are mindful of the clock. Understanding CRC 3.110(d) is essential for staying in compliance with California civil procedure – it can mean the difference between smoothly handling a scheduling issue versus facing a default or sanctions for a missed deadline. In a broader sense, Rule 3.110 as a whole is about case management discipline: serve quickly, respond quickly, or face the consequences.
At Impact Attorneys, we recognize that navigating these procedural requirements can be daunting for both litigants and even other attorneys. Our team stays up-to-date on California civil procedure and all the Rules of Court (including CRC 3.110 and its subdivisions) to ensure that our clients’ cases remain in compliance and on track. Whether it’s making sure a complaint is served within the required 60 days, strategically using the one 15-day extension for a responsive pleading, or promptly securing defaults and judgments when a defendant fails to respond, we have the experience and diligence to handle it. We pride ourselves on our professional case management – meaning we don’t miss deadlines, and we know how to use the rules to our clients’ advantage while avoiding pitfalls.
If you have a case in California or questions about timelines and case management, Impact Attorneys is here to help. We blend deep knowledge of procedural rules with a practical, client-focused approach. From timely filings to effective advocacy, our goal is to advance your case efficiently and effectively. Compliance with rules like CRC 3.110(d) is just one part of a successful litigation strategy, and with seasoned legal guidance, you can confidently navigate the process. Contact us to learn how we can assist with managing your lawsuit and ensuring full compliance with California’s civil procedure requirements – so you can focus on the substance of your case, while we handle the procedural precision.
