In motions for summary judgment, the objecting party must either (1) submit objections in writing pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354 or (2) make arrangements for a court reporter to be present at the hearing.  (CRC, rule 3.1352.)  I would always recommend in favor of preparing written objections.  Written objections must be served and filed at the same time as the objecting party's opposition or reply papers are due. (CRC, rule 3.1354(a).) You want the judge to have the benefit of your written objections while he or she is reviewing the motion.  You don't want the judge to engage in a comprehensive review, reach a tentative decision, and then hear objections for the first time at the hearing.  If, for some reason, you are forced to wait until the hearing, then I would recommend that your objections be as specific as required of written objections in CRC, rule 3.1354(b). 

Pursuant to CRC 3.1354(c), you must also provide a proposed order to allow the court to rule on written objections.  What could be easier?  The court simply has to check the line for "sustained" or "overruled."  And if you forget to ask the court for a ruling, you have a document in your hand to remind you.  Despite this seemingly streamlined procedure, I still recommend that the objecting attorney limit his or her objections to those that are truly important to the motion as no judge wants to rule on numerous objections, especially when they relate to unimportant facts or the objections are boilerplate.  Presenting the trial court with a select few objections enhances the chances of getting a ruling.

Relying on an oral objection poses a risk that you might forget to obtain a ruling.  A similar problem might arise where the objecting party fails to prepare a proposed order, which is mandatory under CRC, rule 1.354(c).)   If you know the objection in advance and just forgot - yikes! - to prepare written objections, you might consider preparing a proposed order in a similar format to accompany your oral objection.

Failing to object and obtain a ruling on the objection can have a significant impact on appellate review.  The failure to obtain a ruling on evidentiary objections will result in a waiver, allowing the appellate court to consider the objectionable evidence in reviewing the motion. (Demps v. San Francisco Housing Authority (2007) 149 Cal. App.4th 564, 578.

What about the judge who refuses to rule even though you request a ruling or says that he or she will only consider admissible evidence?  We look at these situations in my next post . . .