AB 2347 Explained: What California’s 10-Court-Day Answer Deadline Means for Tenants
If you have been served with an unlawful detainer in California, the most important number in the entire case is the response deadline. Effective January 1, 2025, AB 2347 changed that number from 5 days to 10 court days. The shift sounds small, but it changes the entire posture of an eviction case for tenants. Here is what AB 2347 actually does, how to count the days correctly, and what changed in practical terms.
1. The new deadline is 10 court days, not 10 calendar days.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1167 now gives tenants 10 court days from the day after service to file an Answer, demurrer, or motion to quash. “Court days” means weekdays excluding court holidays. Weekends and observed court holidays do not count. The clock starts the day AFTER service, not the day of service.
2. The old 5-day rule still applies to cases served before January 1, 2025.
AB 2347 applies prospectively. If your case was served before January 1, 2025, the prior 5-day rule governs. If your case was served on or after that date, the 10-court-day rule applies. The distinction matters for older cases still in motion practice or post-judgment posture.
3. Missing the deadline triggers a default judgment.
If you do not file by the deadline, the landlord can request entry of default, then default judgment. Once judgment is entered, the landlord can request a writ of possession from the clerk. The sheriff posts a 5-day notice to vacate, then performs the lockout. The full path from missed deadline to lockout can be as short as 30 days.
4. The extra days actually let you build a real defense.
Five days was not enough time for most tenants to find counsel, read the notice, gather paperwork, and file a proper Answer. Ten court days creates breathing room for defensive work: pulling the building’s LARSO/RSO registration history, requesting the landlord’s ledger of payments, identifying defective notice issues, and assembling a habitability or retaliation defense.
5. The deadline does not extend other deadlines automatically.
AB 2347 changed the response deadline only. Discovery deadlines (CCP 1170.8, 2024.020, 2030.260(c)), trial-setting timelines (CCP 1170.5), and post-judgment deadlines all still operate on their original schedules. The case still moves quickly once your Answer is on file.
6. Filing on time keeps every defense alive.
An Answer filed within the 10-court-day window preserves every affirmative defense: defective notice, improper service, retaliatory eviction under CC 1942.5, habitability under Green v. Superior Court, AB 1482 just-cause defects, LARSO/RSO registration lapses, owner-move-in pretext, rent overstatement under Bevill v. Zoura, and more. Each defense has its own paper trail and evidentiary basis. Filing on time is the gate.
7. Setting aside a default is harder than filing on time.
If the deadline passes and a default is entered, CCP section 473 allows a motion to set aside default and default judgment. The motion is discretionary and requires a showing of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Courts vary in willingness to grant. The motion is harder, slower, and more expensive than simply filing on time.
If you have just been served
The 10-court-day window starts the day AFTER service. Document the date and time you were served, identify the courthouse listed on the summons (page 2), and contact a tenant defense attorney before day 5 to leave room for case preparation. The Law Office of Zak Fisher is a tenant-only practice in Los Angeles. Free consultation: (310) 818-7461 or info@zakfisherlaw.com.
This post is general legal information about AB 2347 and the California unlawful detainer response deadline, not legal advice for any specific matter. The Law Office of Zak Fisher represents tenants only in California eviction matters. No attorney-client relationship is formed without a signed engagement letter. Attorney Advertising. Zak Fisher, Esq., California Bar No. 332712.
Skip to content