What changed, and when

This site asks to be trusted because its work is checkable rather than because a named author stands behind it. That argument only holds if the revisions are visible too. Changes that could have moved a date you already calendared come first.

Version control on this project begins 6 August 2026, and its first commit is a snapshot of the source already running in production on 31 July 2026. Changes made before that date were not recorded individually, and this page does not reconstruct them. Everything below traces to a specific commit.

Changes that could have moved a date

If you calendared something from this site, this is the only section you need to read. Each entry says what the output was and what it is now.

2026-08-27A saved motion computed its outside deadline from the wrong service method

The correction below reached the motion calculator on 25 August. It did not reach saved matters, which kept their own copy of the arithmetic and kept feeding it the answer to the wrong question. A matter saved from the civil motion calculator computed the outside deadline to bring the motion from how the moving papers would be served rather than from how the triggering papers were served on the movant. If you saved a motion matter before 27 August 2026 and answered anything other than personal service for your own papers, its outside deadline was too late. Open the matter and recalculate. On a complaint personally served 24 July 2026 with the demurrer going out by mail, the saved matter showed Friday 28 August. The deadline was Monday 24 August, and § 430.40(a) is not extended by how you serve your own papers. Matters saved before the fix carry no answer to the second question at all, so they now fall back to personal service, which adds nothing.

2026-08-25One dropdown answered two different service questions

“How will you serve the moving papers?” drove both the § 1005(b) notice period and the § 1013 extension on the time to bring the motion. Those run off different facts. The notice period keys to how you serve your own papers; the time to bring the motion keys to how the triggering papers were served on you (CCP § 1013; Lam v. Ngo (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 832). The modal case was wrong by default: a complaint served personally and a motion served electronically or by mail. A movant answering “mail” truthfully for their own papers was given five days they had not earned, so a demurrer due Monday 24 August 2026 was reported as due Friday the 28th, and the results band promoted a dead deadline as live. The two questions are now separate inputs. The second one appears only where § 1013 can move the date, and it defaults to personal service so an unknown answer errs early.

2026-08-17Misdemeanor § 1510 deadlines were 15 days too long

Pen. Code § 1510 sets two periods for preserving pretrial writ review of a § 995 or § 1538.5 denial: 45 days from arraignment on the complaint in a misdemeanor, and 60 days from arraignment on the information or indictment in a felony. Only the 60-day felony period was modelled, behind a note saying the misdemeanor period was 45 days and to “select the right track” when the motion list offered no such track. If you took a § 1510 date off this site for a misdemeanor, it was 15 days later than the statute allows. Recompute it. Both periods are now separate entries in the motion list. On an arraignment of 3 August 2026 the misdemeanor track returns Thursday 17 September and the felony track Friday 2 October.

2026-08-17A deadline falling today is no longer marked as passed

Rows were struck through and marked PASSED by comparing the deadline against the wall clock. Every date the engine produces is anchored to local noon, so from 12:00 p.m. onward a deadline falling that same day was reported as already gone. The comparison is now against today’s date in California rather than the current time. Nothing computed changed; what changed is which rows are presented as expired.

2026-08-13Calendar export emitted one event from a multi-event chain

“Add to calendar” exported only deadlines carried on a result card’s own date field and silently dropped every deadline held in a result table. On the expert deposition track that meant one event out of six: the designation exchange survived, and the four trial-relative cutoffs plus the motion cutoff did not. If you exported an expert or trial chain before 13 August 2026, the entries in your calendar are incomplete. Re-export it. The button now states the event count so the file can be checked against the page before importing.

2026-08-06Supplemental expert designation counted from the wrong anchor

The supplemental designation row added its 20 days to the unrolled exchange base rather than to the exchange date displayed immediately above it, so two adjacent rows silently used two different anchors. On a 15 March 2027 trial the exchange displays Friday 22 January after rolling back off a Sunday, while the supplemental row counted from Sunday 24 January to Saturday 13 February and then rolled forward past Presidents’ Day to Tuesday 16 February. Counting from the displayed date gives Thursday 11 February 2027, five days earlier. A test pins that case.

2026-08-06Summary judgment opposition and reply could read later than they were

Given only a trial date, the opposition and reply rows assumed the hearing sat on the CCP § 437c(a)(3) cutoff. Reservations are scarce and hearings are often set earlier, and when they are, the real opposition and reply dates are earlier than what was shown. That is the unsafe direction: a respondent could read the page and believe they had more time than they did. An inline warning said so but could not fix it. The calculator now takes an optional reserved hearing date, and when given one it counts the 81-day notice, the opposition and the reply from that date, keeps the statutory cutoff on screen as its own row, and flags a reservation later than the cutoff. Left blank, it behaves exactly as before, pinned by a test.

2026-08-06A year-end closure was filed under the wrong year on the holiday sheets

An observed closure can fall in the calendar year before the holiday that generates it. 1 January 2028 is a Saturday, so the courthouse closure is Friday 31 December 2027. The printable sheets bucketed that row by the holiday’s year rather than the closure’s, so it appeared on the wrong sheet. The deadline engine was never affected, only the published sheets.

Corrections that left every date alone

Authority, disclosure and labelling fixes. Every computed date in this section is unchanged, which is why they are not mixed in above.

2026-08-17Two pin cites were wrong, one to a subdivision that does not exist

Section 437c subdivision (a) runs (1) through (5). The sentence making §§ 1005 and 1013 inapplicable to summary judgment, except for 1005(c) on service of opposition and reply papers, is subdivision (b)(6), and this site cited it as (a)(6) in thirteen places. Separately, the § 998 ten-day floor is subdivision (b); (b)(2) is the withdrawal rule, and the ten-day value had been cited to it. Every computed date is unchanged. Both were caught by reading the official text rather than recognising the citation, and both had survived earlier review because they were wrong consistently, so nothing on the site disagreed with them.

2026-08-06The backward roll is now disclosed as a convention, not a statute

CCP § 12c was cited as authority for rolling a backward-counted deadline to the preceding court day. It does not say that: subdivision (a) gives the counting method and (b) counts service add-on days backward from that day. The only roll rules are sections 12 and 12a(a) and rule 1.10(b), and all of them roll forward. The engine still rolls backward, because rolling a notice deadline forward would shorten the notice a statute requires, so it is now carried as a disclosed convention with its own entry in the methodology table and a flag that labels it as one. The same disclosure was added to the criminal page, which carried no rollover statement at all. Arithmetic unchanged.

2026-08-06Safe at Home extension pinned, and the 1005(c) carve-out stated

The 12-day address-confidentiality extension is in CCP § 1013(a) verbatim, so the option stayed and the citation is now pinned to subdivision (a), closing an open question that had been left for someone to check before launch. Separately, section 437c(b)(6) excludes sections 1005 and 1013 except 1005(c) on how opposition and reply papers are served; that carve-out is now stated in the seven places which had asserted the exclusion flatly.

2026-08-06The 31 March closure is named Farmworkers Day

AB 2156 amended Gov. Code section 6700(a)(7) to read “March 31, known as ‘Farmworkers Day.’” It is an urgency statute effective 26 March 2026 and the holiday date is unchanged. The old name had been left in place with a note that the Judicial Council calendar disagreed, which was defensible while the calendar label was the only evidence. An amended statute settles it, and this site stamps every page as verified against the code as of a date after the rename took effect, so the stale name was an accuracy claim rather than a cosmetic one.

2026-08-06A repeated code section could drop a citation from a list

Citation lists were keyed by section number, so where the same section supported two different points in one list, the second one vanished. Keyed by position now.

New coverage

Deadlines and reference material the site did not previously carry.

2026-08-10Ex parte and deposition calculators

Ex parte notice under rule 3.1203 with local filing and reservation practice for 17 counties, and deposition notice, records subpoena, objection and expert tracks. See the county comparison for what is published county-wide and what is set by department.

2026-08-06Printable court holiday sheets, 2026 through 2030

One sheet per year, each row marked verified against the published Judicial Council calendar or projected from statute where that calendar does not yet reach. Start at the holiday index.

2026-08-06Every shipped day-count is listed, including the unverified ones

The methodology table lists every rule the engine carries with its value, authority and verification date. Rules not yet signed off are listed rather than hidden, marked “not yet verified”: a verification trail that shows only the verified rules is not a verification trail.

Changes to how the site works

No effect on any computed deadline.

2026-08-28A saved matter now shows which of its dates the current rules would change

Until today a saved matter could tell you only that the rules had been re-verified since you saved it, which is a statement about version stamps and not about your dates. It could not tell you whether anything had actually moved, so it said the same thing to someone whose dates were all still correct and to someone whose deadline had shifted. Every matter page now recomputes its deadlines under the current rules and shows the comparison: which dates moved and to what, or, just as often, that every date still computes to the one you already have. Nothing is recalculated automatically and no stored date is touched. Recalculating remains a button you press. This reveals the 27 August motion correction to the people it affected. A motion matter saved before that date carries no record of how the triggering papers were served, so the engine reads it as personal service. Those matters were never marked stale, because no rule value and no verification date changed, and so they showed no banner at all. They now show the moved date. Separately, saved motion matters were being measured for staleness against the general verification date rather than the later motions one, which would have made every one of them announce a rule change about nothing the first time the two dates diverged.

2026-08-17A hearing that cannot be noticed in time now says so first

Where the papers could no longer be served in time to give full notice for the hearing date entered, the result still promoted whichever downstream deadline came next, so a live reply date sat above a dead notice date. The result now leads with the fact that the hearing cannot be noticed and computes the earliest hearing that still gives full notice if the papers go out today.

2026-08-17Results have addresses, and chains fit a phone

All seven calculators write their inputs into the address bar and read them back, so a result can be sent to whoever calendars it, bookmarked, or quoted in an error report. A link carries inputs rather than computed dates, so opening an old link runs the current rules instead of repeating an out-of-date answer. Deadline tables also stack on narrow screens rather than holding the authority column off-screen behind a sideways swipe.

2026-08-13Print produced a blank page on three calculators

Fixed. The printed sheet carries the generated date and the citations.

2026-08-13Anonymity stated as a decision, and page titles shortened

/about now argues the case for an unnamed maintainer rather than reading as an unfinished page, and every page title was brought under 60 characters so search results stop truncating mid-phrase.

How the verification dates work

Rules on this site carry a verification date, shown per rule in the methodology table. They resolve to 2026-08-17. On that date every value the engine ships was read against the official text on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, or courts.ca.gov for the Rules of Court and the holiday calendar, rather than confirmed from memory. Three corrections came out of it and are listed above.

Two things that date does not cover, because saying so is the point. The county local rules carry their own dates, per county, and were not part of that pass. And court holidays are confirmed against the published Judicial Council calendar only for the years the Council has actually published; later years on the holiday sheets are marked projected because they are projections from statute.

The remaining limitation is granularity. Rules share a small number of verification dates rather than each carrying the day it was individually read, so a rule untouched since launch and a rule re-read this morning can show the same date. The per-rule field exists and the table renders it; populating it rule by rule is not finished work.

Something here look wrong?

A deadline error matters more than anything else on this site. errors@calcourtdeadlines.com. Include the link to the result, which now carries the inputs, so the exact calculation can be reproduced.