In California, the deadline to meet and confer before a demurrer is at least five days before the responsive pleading is due, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.41. If the parties cannot connect in that window, the demurring party gets an automatic 30-day extension to file by submitting a declaration under penalty of perjury on or before the original due date.
How the Five-Day Rule Works With the 30-Day Demurrer Window
A party generally has 30 days after service of a complaint or cross-complaint to file a demurrer. The meet and confer has to happen at least five days before that filing deadline, which puts the latest practical date at day 25. Waiting until the end of the month to pick up the phone is how attorneys miss the window.
The obligation applies whether the demurrer targets a complaint, a cross-complaint, or an answer. For a demurrer to an answer, the filing deadline is 10 days after the answer is served, so the five-day meet and confer rule leaves almost no scheduling margin.
The Automatic 30-Day Extension
If the parties cannot meet and confer within the five-day window, the demurring party is entitled to an automatic 30-day extension. The court does not weigh whether to grant it. To get the extension, the demurring party must file and serve a declaration under penalty of perjury, on or before the date the demurrer was originally due, stating that a good-faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining why the parties could not connect in time.
The 30 days run from the original due date for the responsive pleading, and the demurring party is protected from default during that period. Anything beyond those 30 days requires a court order and a showing of good cause.
What the Conversation Has to Cover
Section 430.41 does not treat the meet and confer as a formality. The demurring party must identify every cause of action it believes is deficient and state the legal basis for each objection. The party who filed the pleading must then either defend its legal sufficiency with supporting authority or explain how the pleading could be amended to fix the problem.
If the parties reach agreement, the filing party amends and the demurrer becomes unnecessary. If they don’t, the demurring party files and documents what happened.
Acceptable Formats
The statute allows three methods of meeting and conferring: in person, by telephone, or by video conference. A letter or email does not satisfy the requirement, no matter how detailed. The rule contemplates real-time, interactive communication where each side can respond to the other on the spot. A thorough letter cataloging deficiencies is a common substitute attempted in practice, and it does not count.
The Declaration Filed With the Demurrer
Every demurrer must be accompanied by a declaration about the meet and confer. It takes one of two forms:
- A statement that the parties met and conferred by phone, video, or in person and could not resolve the objections raised in the demurrer.
- A statement that the party who filed the pleading failed to respond to the meet and confer request or refused to participate in good faith.
The declaration is filed and served alongside the demurrer itself. Filing without it is a procedural defect.
When an Amended Pleading Is Filed
If a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, the meet and confer clock starts over. The responding party must go through the full process again before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading. A party also cannot demur to an amended pleading on grounds that could have been raised against the earlier version, so holding back objections for the next round is not an option.
What Happens if the Meet and Confer Is Weak or Skipped
Section 430.41(a)(4) states that a court’s finding that the meet and confer was insufficient is not a basis to overrule or sustain the demurrer. The ruling turns on the legal arguments, not the quality of the conversation.
That does not make the requirement empty. Judges who see a token effort may send the parties back to try again before proceeding, and impressions of counsel’s professionalism carry into other parts of the case. In evaluating good faith, courts look at the complexity of the case, the history of the litigation, the nature of the issues, and the quality of the interaction between counsel. A one-sentence demand to “fix your complaint,” with no specific deficiencies or legal authority, is not what the statute contemplates.
The practical takeaway on timing is simple. Calendar the meet and confer at day 20 or earlier, not day 25, so a missed call or a scheduling conflict still leaves room to comply. If it slips anyway, file the declaration for the automatic 30-day extension before the original demurrer deadline passes, and use the added time to hold the conversation the statute actually requires.