Summary proceedings for obtaining possession of real property: procedural requirements.

Assembly Member Nguyen, joined by coauthors Alvarez and Blanca Rubio, ties a structured approach to scheduling hearings on motions in unlawful detainer actions to a baseline timeframe and clearly defined paths for extending that window. The measure preserves a mandatory 5 to 7 court-day window for hearing such motions, while explicitly authorizing later dates only through specified mechanisms.

Under the proposal, extensions beyond the baseline are allowed only through three pathways: a written stipulation of the parties, which permits a later hearing date; for residential tenancies, good cause shown with a court-prescribed notice; and for commercial tenancies, good cause shown with a cap of not more than 10 court days after the first date set for the hearing. These pathways replace discretionary, unbounded delay, creating a codified framework for extending hearings. The existing rules governing opposition and replies remain intact, with oral presentations at the hearing possible and written oppositions subject to filing and service requirements tied to the hearing date.

Implementation would be carried out within the judiciary’s scheduling and calendaring authority for unlawful detainer actions, with courts responsible for applying the new pathways, issuing appropriate notices, and ensuring proper docketing. Service provisions and timing for filing and serving written opposition continue to reference established rules, and written opposition filed in advance must reach the other party by the court day before the hearing, at the court’s discretion potentially accepting later submissions.

The changes affect timing and process for both residential and commercial tenancies, signaling a shift toward predictability in scheduling while granting limited flexibility. Landlords retain the baseline speed for motion hearings, while tenants may benefit from a defined avenue to delay hearings in cases with demonstrated need or through mutual stipulation. In practice, courts and practitioners will need to navigate the new pathways, particularly the broad stipulation option and the residential good-cause mechanism, which lacks a numeric cap. No new funding is proposed, and the measure relies on existing court authority and service procedures to implement the timing changes.