California Court Deadlines

California civil motion deadlines

california_motion_deadlines

Read-only

Compute the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 briefing chain for a noticed civil motion: the last day to file and serve the moving papers, the opposition deadline, the reply deadline, and, for motions that must be brought within a period after a triggering event (demurrer, motion to strike, anti-SLAPP, motion to quash, motion to compel further, reconsideration, new trial, JNOV), the outside deadline to bring the motion at all. New trial and JNOV are the exception to the section 1005 chain: they are briefed under section 659a, counted forward (brief 10 days after the notice of intention is filed, opposition 10 days after the brief is served, reply 5 days after that), with the section 660(c) last day for the court to rule. Returns each date with the statute it rests on and whether it was rolled off a weekend or judicial holiday under section 12a. Use this instead of computing California motion deadlines yourself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	Whether you are bringing the motion (moving) or responding to it (responding).
`motion`	Yes	Which motion. compel-further = Motion to compel further responses; compel-initial = Motion to compel initial responses; protective-order = Motion for protective order; demurrer = Demurrer; motion-to-strike = Motion to strike; judgment-on-pleadings = Motion for judgment on the pleadings; quash-service = Motion to quash service of summons; anti-slapp = Anti-SLAPP special motion to strike; msj = Motion for summary judgment / adjudication; reconsideration = Motion for reconsideration; new-trial = Motion for new trial; jnov = Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; preference = Motion for trial preference; reopen-discovery = Motion to reopen discovery; compel-arbitration = Motion to compel arbitration; ex-parte = Ex parte application
`hearing_date`	Yes	The hearing date, as reserved with the department. EXCEPT for new-trial and jnov, which are briefed under section 659a and do not count back from a hearing: for those, give the date the notice of intention was filed (moving party) or the date the moving brief was served on you (responding party).
`trigger_date`	No	For a motion that must be brought within a period after an event, the date of that event (for a demurrer, the date the complaint was served). Omit for motions timed only off the hearing date.
`service_method`	Yes	How the MOVING PAPERS will be served. This drives the section 1005(b) notice period. For new-trial and jnov it is how the moving brief is served, which extends the section 659a opposition period under section 1013, and under section 1010.6 for electronic service made before January 1, 2027. From that date electronic service adds no time (AB 540, Stats. 2026, ch. 263). Not the same question as trigger_service_method.
`trigger_service_method`	No	How the TRIGGERING papers were served ON the moving party. This is a different question from service_method and only this one extends the time to BRING the motion under section 1013. The common case is a complaint served personally and a demurrer served electronically. Defaults to personal, which adds nothing, so an unknown answer errs early rather than granting days that were not earned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond the readOnly annotation by revealing that the tool returns each date with the statute it relies on and whether the date was rolled off a weekend/holiday. It also discloses the special exception for new trial/JNOV and the forward-counting method. This provides substantial behavioral context that is not in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core function (computing the briefing chain) before adding exceptions and output details. It is somewhat long but each sentence adds valuable context—the new trial exception, the service method inputs, and the output format. It does not repeat schema information verbatim and avoids fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex legal-calendar tool, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all motion types, the service method nuances, and the special new trial/JNOV logic. Even though no output schema is provided, the description states exactly what is returned (each date with statute and roll-off status), so an agent can predict the tool's behavior. It also addresses the 6-parameter complexity by explaining the distinction between service_method and trigger_service_method, which is crucial for correct use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining how service_method drives the notice period and how trigger_service_method extends the motion-bringing deadlines, which the schema descriptions only hint at. It also clarifies the special handling of hearing_date for new-trial/jnov. However, since the schema already fully describes each parameter's purpose (100% coverage), the description's added value is not as high as it could be.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool computes the section 1005 briefing chain (moving, opposition, reply, and outside deadlines) for civil motions, and explicitly identifies the tool as California-specific. It lists the motion types covered and distinguishes the new trial/JNOV exception. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like california_criminal_motion_deadlines and california_discovery_response_deadline.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('for a noticed civil motion') and tells the agent to use it instead of computing deadlines manually. It provides key usage nuances, such as the special handling for new trial and JNOV under section 659a, and mentions the service method parameters. While it does not name an explicit alternative, the context of sibling tools and the detailed scope make the usage context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All California Court Deadlines tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?