This law section states that issues between parties in a legal case come up when one side claims something and the other side disagrees. These issues can be about the actual facts or about how the law should be interpreted.

In legal cases, a question or issue about the law might come up in a few specific instances. One instance is when someone challenges parts of a formal written response, like a complaint or an answer, saying there's a legal reason it should be dismissed. Another instance is when someone formally asks the court to remove certain parts of these documents based on specific rules.

An issue of fact is when there's a disagreement about facts in a case. It happens in two ways: if the defendant disagrees with important claims in the complaint, or if there are new claims made by the defendant that don't involve just legal questions.

This law states that legal questions are typically decided by a judge unless everyone involved agrees to let someone else decide. If someone doesn't actively pursue their demurrer (which is a way to dispute the legal sufficiency of the other party's facts), it might be treated as if they've given it up, unless something different is stated in another specific code section.

In legal cases involving claims for specific property or money due to contracts or injuries, a jury usually decides on the facts, unless both parties agree not to have a jury or if another method is ordered by the court. Legal questions must be dealt with before factual ones. In other types of cases, the judge usually decides the facts, but they can choose to have a jury or another method handle it.

This law explains how either party in a superior court case can proceed with a trial even if the other party doesn't show up, as long as the absent party has been properly notified. For typical cases, the court must confirm the absent party received at least 15 days' notice of the trial. In eviction cases, the notice period is shortened to 5 or 10 days, depending on how the notice is served. Notices can be sent by mail either by the court clerk or by the involved parties if the clerk doesn’t do it within the required timeframe. The law specifies how proof of notice can be demonstrated, either through certain certificates or affidavits.

This law says the court can reschedule a trial if it's busy with another case or if changes to the case's paperwork make a delay necessary.

This law states that if a party, attorney, or key witness in a civil case is a member of the California Legislature and the Legislature is in session or has a short recess, the trial or hearing must be postponed to a definite date. The delay is to accommodate the legislative duties of the involved person, ensuring they can attend the proceedings without conflict. If the Legislature is in session or about to meet soon, the hearing should not start until 30 days after the session ends or a long recess starts, unless the involved attorney agrees. If the postponement involves a legislative committee meeting, the trial waits until there's enough time for the legislative member to travel to and from the meeting. Still, this rule does not apply if it prevents urgent actions like paternity or immediate support cases, or the protection of rights through measures such as restraining orders. In such cases, the court can choose not to delay the hearing.

This law clarifies that when the term “proceeding in a court” is mentioned, it covers activities like discovery, pretrial conferences, depositions, and interrogatories in any ongoing civil case. Additionally, this definition isn't new but merely confirms what the existing law already stated.

This law states that a trial or a hearing in a legal case can be delayed for up to 30 days as long as all the lawyers involved agree in writing to the delay.

This law says that in legal cases about who owns mining claims or about damage to them, the court can delay the trial if it's necessary to do extra work or research on the mining site. This is to make sure everything is fair and based on full information. The court will give a reasonable amount of time for this extra work to be done before the trial can proceed.

If you're asking to delay a trial because you don't have some evidence yet, you have to explain in writing why this evidence is important and that you've done everything you reasonably can to get it. If the delay is because a key witness is missing, you must also explain what you expect them to say. But, if the other side agrees to accept this expected testimony as if it were given during the trial or recognizes it as inadmissible, then the trial won't be delayed.

If you ask to delay your trial in California, and the other side wants, you must agree to let them get their witnesses' testimony recorded ahead of time through a deposition. This means the recorded testimony can be used later in court just like if the witnesses were there in person. The judge, court clerk, or a notary public might handle this process.

This law explains that if someone claims a lawsuit shouldn't proceed because of reasons like the statute of limitations, previous judgments, or ongoing cases, the court can decide to address these issues before dealing with other parts of the case. If these defenses succeed, then a judgment is given, potentially stopping or delaying further proceedings unless overturned on appeal. If the defenses fail, the rest of the case can continue being heard. This applies to regular lawsuits and cross-complaints, and decisions about these defenses can be reviewed if there's a request for a new trial or an appeal.

This law addresses cases against various healthcare professionals or hospitals for professional negligence, lack of consent, or mistakes in service. If the accused claims that the lawsuit is too old (barred by the statute of limitations), this issue has to be resolved first, separately from the rest of the case. If the court decides that the time limit doesn’t block the case, then the other issues can be addressed.

This section allows the court to decide that certain parts of a trial can happen before others if it makes things easier for witnesses, is more just, or saves time and resources. Before the final pretrial conference or 30 days before the trial, a party can ask the court to schedule certain issues for trial first. The court can also decide on its own to do this at any time. If the court or jury finds that a party is not liable, then that party wins the case, and other issues won't be tried unless that decision is overturned. If liability is found, or no verdict is reached, then the remaining issues will be tried at a later date, potentially with a new jury.

This law says that if a trial or arbitration date is postponed, all related deadlines, like those for gathering evidence or holding a settlement conference, are also postponed by the same amount of time. This rule only applies if the continuation happens after March 19, 2020. The rule is only active during the COVID-19 state of emergency declared on March 4, 2020, plus 180 days after the emergency ends. After that, the rule will be repealed.