When a defendant is served with a civil lawsuit in California Superior Court, they must respond within a prescribed timeframe to avoid the imposition of a default judgment. The defendant has several procedural mechanisms at their disposal, each tailored to specific legal and strategic objectives. Below is an overview of the principal responses available. *This article contains general information and is not intended to be relied upon as legal advice.
Filing an Answer
The most conventional response to a lawsuit is the filing of an answer. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 431.30, an answer must contain general or specific denials of the allegations set forth in the complaint, along with any applicable affirmative defenses. Affirmative defenses, such as the expiration of the statute of limitations, waiver, or comparative negligence, provide legal grounds for contesting liability. Defendants must file their answer generally within 30 days of service of the complaint (CCP § 412.20(a)(3)).
Filing an answer is typically the most cost-effective response, as it allows the defendant to contest the lawsuit without the expense associated with preliminary motions. However, while an answer ensures that the defendant does not default, it does not immediately test the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claims or challenge procedural defects. Defendants seeking a stronger strategic posture may consider alternative responses that, while more costly, could provide superior outcomes or signal a willingness to aggressively litigate the matter.
Filing a Cross-Complaint
If the defendant possesses claims against the plaintiff or a third party that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, they may file a cross-complaint pursuant to CCP § 428.10. It is also possible to file a cross claim that is unrelated to the complaint but is against the same or related parties. A cross complaint enables defendants to assert counterclaims and related causes of action within the existing litigation, thereby streamlining judicial efficiency.
Filing a Demurrer
A demurrer serves as a procedural challenge to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, independent of any factual disputes. Under CCP § 430.10, a defendant may demur to a complaint if it fails to state a legally cognizable cause of action, is uncertain, or lacks necessary factual specificity. If sustained, the court may grant leave to amend or, in certain circumstances, dismiss the lawsuit outright.
Filing a Motion to Strike
A motion to strike seeks to excise improper, irrelevant, or legally deficient allegations from the complaint (CCP § 436). This tool can be particularly effective in eliminating unfounded punitive damage claims or other prejudicial assertions that lack a substantive legal basis.
Filing an Anti-SLAPP Motion
Defendants sued for engaging in constitutionally protected speech or petitioning activity may invoke California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute (CCP § 425.16). This procedural mechanism allows for the early dismissal (or striking) of lawsuits that are designed to suppress free expression or a personal petitioning of the government. If successful, the defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. This is one of the few early responses to a lawsuit where a defendant can rely on evidence. However, anti-SLAPP often does not apply to the case.
Filing a Motion to Quash Service of Process
A motion to quash challenges the propriety of service of process. If a defendant contends that they were not served in accordance with California’s procedural requirements, they may move to quash service under CCP § 418.10. If the court grants the motion, the plaintiff must perfect proper service before proceeding with the case.
Filing a Motion Challenging Personal Jurisdiction
If a defendant believes that the California court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, they may file a motion to dismiss on that basis. This motion asserts that the defendant lacks sufficient minimum contacts with the state to justify the exercise of jurisdiction under constitutional due process principles (CCP § 418.10(a)(1)). If granted, the court may dismiss the case or transfer it to a more appropriate jurisdiction.
Filing a Motion Challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A motion challenging subject matter jurisdiction asserts that the California Superior Court lacks the legal authority to adjudicate the case. This issue arises when a dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts or specialized tribunals. Under CCP § 430.10(a), if a court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it is obligated to dismiss the action.
Filing a Motion to Transfer Venue
If a lawsuit has been filed in an improper venue, a defendant may seek to transfer the case to a more appropriate forum under CCP § 397. Grounds for transferring venue include the convenience of witnesses, the location of pertinent evidence, or the absence of jurisdiction in the originally selected county.
Request for Extension
Should a defendant require additional time to formulate a response, they may negotiate an extension with the plaintiff or petition the court for an extension of time.
Conclusion
Defendants in California Superior Court possess an array of procedural mechanisms for responding to a civil lawsuit. While filing an answer is often the most economical approach, other responses—such as demurrers, motions to strike, or jurisdictional challenges—may offer more strategic advantages, potentially resulting in case dismissal or significant procedural leverage. The choice of response should be guided by legal considerations, potential litigation costs, and the defendant’s broader strategic objectives.
Retaining experienced and quality legal counsel is strongly advised to ensure procedural compliance and to maximize the likelihood of a favorable outcome. Failure to respond appropriately can result in a default judgment, carrying significant legal and financial consequences. The above motions are not exhaustive and other procedural devices may be available depending on the specific facts of the case.
This article pertains to defensive options in California Superior Court. Different rules and procedures apply in federal court or in other specialty tribunals.
References
- California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 418.10, 425.16, 430.10, 436, 428.10, 397
- Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial