California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(d) – Time for Filing Responsive Pleadings

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.