California Ex Parte Applications: The 10:00 a.m. Notice Rule and the Declaration That Carries the Motion

Short answer: notice by 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent exceptional circumstances. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1203(a). Five documents are required, and one of them is a personal-knowledge declaration of irreparable harm.

Most California ex parte applications fail on paper, not on the merits. The notice deadline runs in court days, and the declaration meant to carry the application is usually argument rather than competent testimony on personal knowledge.

How much notice is required for an ex parte application in California?

Rule 3.1203(a) states: “A party seeking an ex parte order must notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances that justify a shorter time for notice.”

Three things in that sentence do work. The obligation runs to all parties, not only the one you expect to oppose. The clock is a fixed hour on a fixed day, so an afternoon appearance does not buy an afternoon deadline. And the unit is the court day, which is where the arithmetic usually goes wrong.

Unlawful detainer practice has its own standard. Rule 3.1203(b) provides that a party seeking an ex parte order in an unlawful detainer proceeding “may provide shorter notice than required under (a) provided that the notice given is reasonable.” Reasonableness replaces the fixed hour; it does not eliminate notice. Rule 3.1203 was adopted effective January 1, 2007 and amended effective January 1, 2008.

What documents must a California ex parte application include?

Rule 3.1201 lists five required components: “An application containing the case caption and stating the relief requested”; “A declaration in support of the application making the factual showing required under rule 3.1202(c)”; “A declaration based on personal knowledge of the notice given under rule 3.1204”; “A memorandum”; and “A proposed order.”

Items two and three are separate declarations. Merging the harm showing and the notice recital into one is common and is not what the rule contemplates. They are tested differently: the harm declaration must be competent testimony, the notice declaration is a dated log.

What must the supporting declaration actually say?

Rule 3.1202(c) is the provision that decides contested applications: “An applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.”

Four requirements are stacked there. The showing must be affirmative, so you carry it rather than point at a gap in the other side’s position. It must be factual, not argumentative. It must be competent testimony, which rules out hearsay relayed through staff. And it must rest on personal knowledge, so the declarant is the person who knows.

Rule 3.1202(b) adds a disclosure duty: “If an ex parte application has been refused in whole or in part, any subsequent application of the same character or for the same relief, although made upon an alleged different state of facts, must include a full disclosure of all previous applications and of the court’s actions.” Partial denial triggers it, and so does repackaging the same request on new facts. Rule 3.1202(a), amended effective January 1, 2016, requires the application to state the name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of any attorney known to represent a party, or of the party itself if none is known.

What goes in the declaration regarding notice?

Rule 3.1204(a) governs the notice call itself. The person giving notice must “State with specificity the nature of the relief to be requested and the date, time, and place for the presentation of the application” and “Attempt to determine whether the opposing party will appear to oppose the application.” The second duty is affirmative. A voicemail that discloses the hearing and stops there does not satisfy it.

Rule 3.1204(b) requires a declaration regarding notice stating one of three things: “The notice given, including the date, time, manner, and name of the party informed, the relief sought, any response, and whether opposition is expected”; “That the applicant in good faith attempted to inform the opposing party but was unable to do so, specifying the efforts made”; or “That, for reasons specified, the applicant should not be required to inform the opposing party.”

If you missed the 10:00 a.m. deadline, rule 3.1204(c) requires the same declaration to explain either “The exceptional circumstances that justify the shorter notice” or, in unlawful detainer proceedings, “why the notice given is reasonable.” That explanation belongs in the notice declaration, not in the memorandum.

Rule table

Requirement	Operative language	Source
Notice deadline	“must notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances that justify a shorter time for notice”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1203(a)
Unlawful detainer	“may provide shorter notice than required under (a) provided that the notice given is reasonable”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1203(b)
Required documents	an application, a declaration making the rule 3.1202(c) showing, “A declaration based on personal knowledge of the notice given under rule 3.1204,” “A memorandum,” and “A proposed order”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1201
Factual showing	“an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1202(c)
Prior applications	“must include a full disclosure of all previous applications and of the court’s actions”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1202(b)
Contents of notice	“State with specificity the nature of the relief to be requested and the date, time, and place for the presentation of the application”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1204(a)(1)
Duty to ask	“Attempt to determine whether the opposing party will appear to oppose the application”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1204(a)(2)
Notice declaration	“The notice given, including the date, time, manner, and name of the party informed, the relief sought, any response, and whether opposition is expected”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1204(b)(1)
Short notice	“The exceptional circumstances that justify the shorter notice”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1204(c)(1)
Service at the hearing	“Absent exceptional circumstances, no hearing may be conducted unless such service has been made”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1206
Judicial holidays	“Every full day designated as a holiday by Section 6700 of the Government Code … is a judicial holiday”; “Every Saturday and the day after Thanksgiving Day are judicial holidays.”	Code Civ. Proc., § 135
Backward counting	“the last day to perform that act shall be determined by counting backward from the hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing”	Code Civ. Proc., § 12c(a)

Drafting-ready text: the two declarations

Adapt the bracketed material. File these as two separate documents, as rule 3.1201 contemplates.

DECLARATION OF [DECLARANT] IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR [RELIEF]

I, [DECLARANT], declare:

1. I am [the [TITLE] of [PARTY] / counsel of record for [PARTY]] in this action. The facts stated below are within my personal knowledge, and if called as a witness I could and would testify competently to them.

2. [State the operative facts in dated, numbered sentences. Each sentence should be something the declarant saw, did, received, or sent. Attach the documents referenced as exhibits and cite them by exhibit letter and page.]

3. Absent the relief requested, [PARTY] will suffer irreparable harm in that [state the specific consequence, the date by which it occurs, and why money damages later will not restore the position: the [ASSET] will be [transferred / destroyed / encumbered] on [DATE]; the [DEPOSITION / INSPECTION] is set for [DATE] and the [WITNESS / SITE] will not be available afterward].

4. [If applicable] No prior application for this or substantially similar relief has been made in this action. [Or: On [DATE], [PARTY] applied ex parte for [RELIEF]. The court [denied the application in full / granted it in part and denied it as to [ITEM]] on [DATE]. A copy of that application and the court’s order are attached as Exhibits [X] and [Y]. This application is made on the following different facts: [STATE].]

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [DATE] at [CITY], California.

_______________________________
[DECLARANT]

DECLARATION OF [COUNSEL] REGARDING NOTICE (CAL. RULES OF COURT, RULES 3.1201(3), 3.1204(b))

I, [COUNSEL], declare:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California and am counsel of record for [PARTY]. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated below.

2. On [DATE] at [TIME] a.m., I gave notice of this ex parte application to [NAME], counsel of record for [PARTY], by [telephone at [NUMBER] / e-mail to [ADDRESS]]. That notice was given no later than 10:00 a.m. on the court day before the ex parte appearance scheduled for [DATE].

3. In giving that notice I stated the nature of the relief requested, specifically [RELIEF], and stated that the application would be presented on [DATE] at [TIME] in Department [NUMBER] of this court.

4. I asked [NAME] whether [PARTY] would appear to oppose the application. [NAME] stated that [PARTY] [will appear and oppose / will not appear / had not yet decided]. [Or: [NAME] has not responded as of the time of this declaration.]

5. [If notice was late] Notice was given after 10:00 a.m. on the court day before the appearance. The exceptional circumstances justifying the shorter notice are: [STATE WHEN AND HOW THE APPLICANT LEARNED OF THE FACTS CREATING THE EMERGENCY, AND WHAT WAS DONE IN THE INTERVAL].

6. [If no notice] Despite the efforts described in paragraph [NUMBER], I was unable to inform [PARTY]. Those efforts were: [LIST EACH ATTEMPT WITH DATE, TIME, METHOD, AND RESULT].

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [DATE] at [CITY], California.

_______________________________
[COUNSEL]

Worked example: counting back to the notice deadline

Assume you need an order shortening time and plan to appear on Thursday, November 12, 2026.

The calendar day before is Wednesday, November 11, 2026. November 11 is Veterans Day, enumerated in Government Code section 6700, and section 135 makes “Every full day designated as a holiday by Section 6700 of the Government Code” a judicial holiday. Section 135 carves out several section 6700 holidays, including “the second Monday in October, known as ‘Columbus Day,’” and “September 9, known as ‘Admission Day.’” Veterans Day is not among them, so November 11, 2026 is not a court day.

Counting backward, the court day before Thursday, November 12 is Tuesday, November 10, 2026. Your notice deadline is 10:00 a.m. that Tuesday. Counting calendar days would have pointed to Wednesday, roughly 24 hours late, converting a compliant application into a rule 3.1204(c)(1) problem.

Section 12c(a) codifies the direction of travel for deadlines expressed as a number of days before a hearing: “the last day to perform that act shall be determined by counting backward from the hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing.” Rule 3.1203(a) is a one-court-day rule rather than an N-day rule, so section 12c confirms the method without changing the count. Section 135 also makes every Saturday a judicial holiday and reaches every Sunday through section 6700, so a Monday appearance ordinarily means a Friday 10:00 a.m. deadline. Run the count against the real calendar each time, and confirm the department’s ex parte calendar time, which is local.

Cross-jurisdiction contrast

New York. There is no 10:00 a.m. analog. CPLR 2214(d) provides that “The court in a proper case may grant an order to show cause, to be served in lieu of a notice of motion, at a time and in a manner specified therein,” so the judge fixes the notice period in the order rather than a rule fixing it in advance. For temporary injunctive relief, 22 NYCRR 202.7(f) requires “an affirmation demonstrating there will be significant prejudice to the party seeking the restraining order by the giving of notice,” and absent that showing, a good faith effort to notify the opposing party of the time, date and place of the application sufficient to permit an opportunity to appear. The New York showing is about prejudice from giving notice; the California showing under rule 3.1202(c) is about the harm from waiting.

Federal civil. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) permits a temporary restraining order without notice “only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Rule 65(b)(2) caps the order: it “expires at the time after entry, not to exceed 14 days, that the court sets,” absent a good-cause extension or the adverse party’s consent. The California ex parte rules impose no comparable automatic expiration, so that federal habit does not transfer.

Bankruptcy. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7065 provides: “Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 applies in an adversary proceeding. But on application of a debtor, trustee, or debtor in possession, the court may issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction without complying with subdivision (c) of that rule.” The carve-out is the security requirement only. Rule 65(b) notice and certification still apply. Rule 7065 was amended April 2, 2024, effective December 1, 2024.

Pre-filing checklist

• Notice given to all parties, not only the expected opponent, by 10:00 a.m. the court day before the appearance. Rule 3.1203(a).
• Court day computed against the real calendar, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and section 6700 holidays other than the section 135 carve-outs.
• Notice stated the specific relief and the date, time, and place of presentation, and you asked whether the opposing party will appear to oppose. Rule 3.1204(a).
• Five documents assembled: application, harm declaration, notice declaration, memorandum, proposed order. Rule 3.1201.
• Harm declaration is competent testimony on personal knowledge, with dated facts and exhibits, not argument. Rule 3.1202(c).
• Any earlier application refused in whole or in part is fully disclosed, with the court’s actions. Rule 3.1202(b).
• Application states opposing counsel’s name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number, or the party’s. Rule 3.1202(a).
• If notice was late, the exceptional circumstances are explained in the notice declaration. Rule 3.1204(c)(1).
• Application and any written opposition served on all appearing parties at the first reasonable opportunity, since “no hearing may be conducted unless such service has been made.” Rule 3.1206.
• Department’s local ex parte calendar time and reservation procedure confirmed. Local requirements sit on top of the statewide rules, not instead of them.

Same-day ex parte drafting

Ex parte work arrives without warning: a client calls at 4:00 p.m. about a transfer closing Friday, and the notice deadline is 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. LegalBriefsUSA drafts the full rule 3.1201 package, including the rule 3.1202(c) harm declaration built from your client’s facts, the rule 3.1204(b) declaration regarding notice, the memorandum, and the proposed order. If the application has to be on calendar the day after tomorrow and the declaration reads like argument, send us the file and the exhibits.

Related reading: the CCP 1005 court-day count, the CCP 2016.040 meet-and-confer declaration, demurrer timing after an amended complaint, CPLR 2214(b) motion notice in New York, and CRC 3.1350 separate statements.

Authorities cited

California Rules of Court, rules 3.1200, 3.1201, 3.1202(a) through (c), 3.1203(a) and (b), 3.1204(a) through (c), and 3.1206, each read on the publication date at courts.ca.gov. Code of Civil Procedure sections 135 and 12c and Government Code section 6700, each verified against two independent sources agreeing verbatim on the operative language, at california.public.law and codes.findlaw.com. CPLR 2214(d) read at nysenate.gov; 22 NYCRR 202.7(a) and (f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) and 65(b)(2), and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7065 read at law.cornell.edu. No case law is cited. Left out for lack of verification: any local ex parte calendar time, reservation requirement, or page limit for a specific California court or department, and any effective date for 22 NYCRR 202.7(f).

LegalBriefsUSA.com provides drafting and research support to licensed attorneys and law firms. This article is written for attorneys, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.