A recent California Court of Appeal decision potentially undermines the motion reservation systems of local courts. In CFP BDA, LLC v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. July 10, 2025) the Fourth Appellate District ruled that local court rules for timely filing after motion reservation cannot prevent a timely filed summary judgment motion from being heard, even when those local rules about filing deadlines have been violated.

California’s larger counties struggle with calendar management. To prevent judges from being overwhelmed with too many motions on one day or having empty calendars on others, most major counties implemented online reservation systems. Litigants must reserve a hearing date first, then file their motion within a specified timeframe, typically three to ten days after reservation. Litigants who miss that deadline lose their hearing date. This system was designed to prevent parties from reserving multiple dates without an intention to use them. Though the system has problems, it has successfully provided structure to court calendars.

Unfortunately, the system has also resulted in parties not being able to get the dates they want and sometimes facing delays of months before hearing dates are available. This results in motions being heard far later than appropriate, resulting in delays.

The Underlying Case and The Court of Appeal’s Ruling

A lawsuit involving Bermuda Dunes Airport involved adjacent landowners seeking to impose an easement on airport property. On November 14, 2024, the defendant reserved an April 1, 2025, hearing date for their motion for summary judgment. Under Riverside County’s local rules, they had ten days to file the underlying motion to preserve that date. The defendant did not file by the November 24 deadline to meet Riverside’s rules, and instead waited until January 10, 2025, to file their motion for summary judgment. This timing satisfied the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(c) (81 days’ notice before the hearing and the hearing occurring 30 days before trial). However, it violated the (local) ten-day rule by about two months. As a result, the court cancelled the hearing date and rejected the filing. The trial court also denied all requests to specially set the motion for hearing, leaving the defendant without an opportunity to present their summary judgment motion before trial.

Then the Court of Appeal got involved. The court’s opinion makes clear that, while local rules should be obeyed, the statutory requirements trump local rules when it comes to summary judgment motions. Since the defendant’s motion complied with 437(c), the trial court was obligated to hear it, regardless of the local court’s rule violation.

The decision establishes that when a summary judgment motion meets statutory deadlines, courts cannot refuse to hear it based solely on local rule violations. Administrative convenience cannot prevent consideration of timely filed motions on their merits. Furthermore, when local rules conflict with statutory rights, trial courts must find ways to accommodate both, whether through trial continuances or expedited hearing schedules.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the difficulty trial courts face in managing unwieldy calendars and explicitly stated the decision should not be construed as challenging the validity of local reservation rules. However, the court’s reasoning clearly creates tension with those provisions by establishing that statutory compliance alone creates an obligation for courts to hear summary judgment motions.

What You Should Know

The decision carries immediate strategic implications that extend beyond summary judgment motions. If statutory compliance trumps local rules for motions under CCP Section 437c, similar logic could apply to other motions filed on regular notice. The underlying statutory language for regular motions is virtually identical to that governing summary judgment motions, suggesting the Court of Appeal’s reasoning could render local reservation rules essentially meaningless across all motion practice.

While the Court of Appeal’s decision may provide a safety net for missed local deadlines, it’s not a license to ignore reservation requirements. Courts retain discretion in how they accommodate conflicting demands, and sanctions remain a risk for attorneys who flagrantly disregard local rules.

Attorneys should pay careful attention to the impact the CFP BDA, LLC v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. July 10, 2025) decision has on local court calendars, as well as any reflexive changes to local rules. Rules requiring prompt filing of motions were intended to dissuade attorneys from preemptively booking hearing dates they might not use. However, the process of advance booking arose out of necessity when attorneys discovered that, without reserving dates for motion for summary judgment hearings well ahead of time, they risked not being able to secure a hearing date or not being able to secure a date that complied with the deadlines before trial. Until a solution to the underlying problem is found (chronic underfunding of California’s court system and an insufficient number of judges to handle the state’s litigation demands), local rules are not likely to be successful in managing the scarcity through administrative controls, and lawyers may need to continue to create ad hoc solutions. The problem requires a legislative solution that addresses judicial resources, rather than piecemeal fixes that create conflicts between the procedural requirements of different authorities.

< See all News / Events