Search this site
CalCourtDeadlines.com
MenuSearch this site

What changed, and when

This site is signed, but a name does not make a date right. It asks to be trusted because its work is checkable, and that 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 August 6, 2026, and its first commit is a snapshot of the source already running in production on July 31, 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.

Farmworkers Day moves from March 31 to April 10, starting in 2027
SB 1394 (Stats. 2026, ch. 708, signed September 27, 2026) amends Gov. Code § 6700 to make April 10 Farmworkers Day from January 1, 2027, and CCP § 135 carries it as a judicial holiday. April 10, 2027 is a Saturday, so under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.11 the courts close Friday, April 9, and Wednesday, March 31 is a court day. Later years move the same way: Friday, March 31, 2028 becomes Monday, April 10; Friday, March 30, 2029 becomes Tuesday, April 10; and Monday, April 1, 2030 becomes Wednesday, April 10. 2026 is unchanged. Some dates calendared from the old list are a court day late. A count running forward across the old date, or back across the new one, now comes out a court day earlier. The opposition to a motion heard Monday, April 19, 2027 is due nine court days before the hearing under CCP § 1005(b): it was Tuesday, April 6, and is now Monday, April 5. The Judicial Council's published 2027 schedule lists Farmworkers Day on Friday, April 9 as well. The 2027 sheet has the full year.
Discovery Act deadlines on a weekend or holiday now move to the next court day
CCP § 2016.060 says that when the last day for an act under the Civil Discovery Act "falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday as specified in Section 10, the time limit is extended until the next court day closer to the trial date." For a deadline counted back from trial, that is the later court day. The trial countdown, the discovery cutoff calculator, the deposition calculator's cutoff tables, saved matters, calendar feeds and the assistant connector moved these dates back to the court day before instead, and called that the conservative date. They now give the date the statute sets: the expert demand, the expert exchange, the supplemental expert list, and the discovery and discovery motion cutoffs, fact and expert. The expert witness calculator already gave the exchange this way. The last day to serve written discovery is worked back from the cutoff, so it moves with it. The summary judgment and 998 rows are not Discovery Act deadlines and still move to the court day before. Nothing you calendared from the old dates is late. Every old date is on or before the new one, and serving or completing earlier is always timely. Trial Monday, March 15, 2027: the expert exchange was Friday, January 22, 2027, and is now Monday, January 25, 2027. The nonexpert discovery cutoff was Thursday, February 11 and is now Tuesday, February 16, past Presidents' Day, and the supplemental expert list moved from Thursday, February 11 to the same Tuesday. The last day to hear nonexpert discovery motions and the expert discovery cutoff were Friday, February 26 and are now Monday, March 1. The last day to serve written discovery was Tuesday, January 12 and is now Friday, January 15. For a trial on Monday, November 16, 2026, the 70th day before trial is Labor Day, so the last day to demand the expert exchange was Friday, September 4 and is now Tuesday, September 8. The changed rows await attorney countersignature and say so.
Unlawful detainer: the five extra court days are for Safe at Home service only
CCP § 1167(b) gives an unlawful detainer defendant "an additional five court days" where "service is completed by mail or in person through the Secretary of State's address confidentiality program." The calculator gave those five court days to every mailed method: substituted service, mail outside the state, and notice and acknowledgment. Read with the program phrase carrying both methods, a summons mailed outside the program gets none, and none of the methods the calculator offers is service through the program. That is the reading the Judicial Council's own eviction summons takes: SUM-130 (rev. January 1, 2026) gives the extra time only "If this summons was served through the Secretary of State's Safe at Home address confidentiality program." On that reading, if you took an unlawful detainer response date from this site for a summons served by substituted service, by mail outside California, or by notice and acknowledgment, it was five court days too late. Recompute it. Notice and acknowledgment signed Monday, September 14, 2026: the calculator returned Tuesday, October 6, 2026. It now returns Tuesday, September 29, 2026, the same as personal service (10 court days, across Native American Day). A defendant served through the Safe at Home program adds five court days to that date. The rule awaits attorney countersignature and says so.
Orange County: the Wednesday before trial no longer lands on a court holiday
Orange County Superior Court Rule 317(A) and (B) make the trial documents and the joint trial notebook due "by noon on the Wednesday before trial." The trial countdown printed that Wednesday even when it was a court holiday. The rule names a day, not a count, and does not say which way a holiday moves it. Code of Civil Procedure section 12a(b) would carry an act due on a particular day forward to the next court day; the calculator moves it back to the prior court day, the earlier of the two readings, and says so on the row. If you took the Orange County trial documents date from this site for a trial whose Wednesday before was a court holiday, recompute it. Trial Monday, November 16, 2026: the calculator returned Wednesday, November 11, 2026, which is Veterans Day. It now returns Tuesday, November 10, 2026, at noon. The row awaits attorney countersignature and says so. Every matter saved under engine 1.1.0 is marked "rules updated" in your saved list.
A complaint served with the summons gets no mail or e-service days
The motion to quash, the demurrer, the motion to strike and the anti-SLAPP motion added the § 1013 and § 1010.6 extensions to a period that runs from service of the summons. CCP § 1016 takes service of a summons or other process outside those sections, and for the time to plead CCP § 413.20 says the § 1013 extensions "shall not extend any time specified in this title." The method of service still matters, because service of a summons is complete on different days (§§ 415.10, 415.20, 415.30(c), 415.40), so enter the day it was complete. If you took one of these dates off this site for a complaint served with the summons, and you told it the summons went out by mail, overnight delivery or e-service, the date was too late. Recompute it. Notice and acknowledgment signed Thursday, October 1, 2026: the last day to move to quash is Monday, November 2 under every method, where mail within California used to return Thursday, November 5. An anti-SLAPP motion on the same summons is due Monday, November 30, where mail used to return Monday, December 7. A demurrer to a complaint whose service was complete Thursday, August 6, 2026, is due Tuesday, September 8. The calculators now ask what was served, and an amended complaint mailed on August 6 still gets the five days and returns Thursday, September 10. Every matter saved before September 28, 2026, is marked "rules updated" in your saved list, and its page asks you to recalculate. That covers each change dated September 28 on this page. Nothing is recalculated for you.
A motion to strike an answer got 30 days instead of 10
The motion to strike counted 30 days whatever the pleading was. Against an answer, CCP § 435(b)(1) ties the motion to "the time allowed to respond to a pleading," and the only response the code allows to an answer is a demurrer within 10 days after service (CCP § 430.40(b); § 471.5(b) for an amended answer). Those 10 days are extended by the way the answer was served. If you took a date to move to strike an answer from this site, it was about three weeks too late. Recompute it. Answer personally served Thursday, October 1, 2026: the last day is now Monday, October 12. It used to be Monday, November 2. Served by mail within California, it is Friday, October 16.
New trial and JNOV: 180 days after entry is a cap, not a starting point
CCP § 659(a)(2) makes the notice of intention due within 15 days of service of notice of entry of judgment, "or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest." The calculator, the chart and the motion pages treated the 180 days as one more event for the 15 days to run from, which reads as day 195. CCP § 629(b) gives JNOV the same period, so both motions had the error. If no notice of entry had been served and you took a new trial or JNOV date from this site, it was up to 15 days too late. Recompute it. Judgment entered Monday, March 2, 2026, with no notice of entry served: day 180 is Saturday, August 29, so the last day is Monday, August 31. The calculator used to return Monday, September 14. The date of entry is now its own field, and the result is whichever limit ends first.
The last day to serve a 998 offer now adds time for mail and e-service
The trial countdown put the § 998 row 10 days before trial for every service method. That holds only for personal service. Lecuyer v. Sunset Trails Apts. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 920 treats the 10 days in § 998(b) as a period of notice under CCP § 1013(a), so a mailed offer needs 5 more calendar days within California, 10 from outside the state and 20 from outside the country. Overnight delivery adds two court days (§ 1013(c)), and e-service made through December 31, 2026, adds two court days (CCP § 1010.6(a)(3)(B)). No published decision applies § 1013(c) or § 1010.6 to a 998 offer; adding them is a reading of Lecuyer, not a holding. If you served a 998 offer by mail, overnight delivery or e-service on the last day the trial countdown showed, check it against the new date. A late offer loses its cost shifting. Trial Monday, November 16, 2026, offer mailed within California: the last day is now Friday, October 30. The countdown used to show Friday, November 6. The row follows the countdown's service method setting.
Records subpoenas: the custodian is served 15 days before production
CCP § 2020.410(c) sets production for a records-only subpoena no earlier than 20 days after it issues or 15 days after it is served, whichever is later. The records track never counted it. For consumer and employee records it gave an earliest day to serve the custodian about five days before production, which the 15 days forbid, and it counted the consumer's deadline from production rather than from service on the custodian (§§ 1985.3(b)(3), 1985.6(b)(3)). For records that are neither, it gave no date and pointed to the deposition notice rule. If you set up a records subpoena from this site's dates, check the issuance, custodian and consumer dates against the new ones. Production Friday, November 20, 2026, consumer records, notice mailed within California: serve the consumer by Monday, October 26 (it used to say Thursday, November 5), issue the subpoena by Friday, October 30, and serve the custodian by Thursday, November 5. The old result gave Monday, November 16 as the earliest day to serve the custodian. Records that are neither now get the custodian and issuance dates.
Electronic service stops adding two court days on January 1, 2027
AB 540 (Stats. 2026, ch. 263), signed September 18, 2026, rewrites CCP § 1010.6 without the two-court-day extension for electronic service and adds "excluding electronic service" to the overnight-delivery increases in §§ 1005(b) and 437c(a)(2). It takes effect January 1, 2027, and every calculator here now applies it, keyed to the date of service: e-service on or before December 31, 2026, keeps the two court days, and e-service on or after January 1, 2027, gets none. If you calendared a response deadline for something e-served in late 2026 that falls due in 2027, recheck it. That date carries two court days from a provision removed before the deadline arrives, and no court has said whether they survive. Discovery e-served Monday, December 28, 2026, still shows Friday, January 29, 2027, and the result now also names Wednesday, January 27 as the safe date. Counting back from a hearing, the change runs the other way and sets a trap. For a hearing on Wednesday, January 27, 2027, the last day to e-serve is now Monday, January 4, because e-service that day needs only the 16 court days. E-service in 2026 is still held to the old 18, so papers e-served in December must go out by Wednesday, December 30, and e-service on Thursday, December 31 is one court day short. The calculators show both dates. Holding 2026 service to the old rule is this site's reading, chosen because it gives more notice, and not a holding.
New trial and JNOV were briefed on the wrong statute
The calculator, the motion pages, saved matters and the assistant connector ran the motion for new trial and the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict through the § 1005(b) chain: moving papers 16 court days before a hearing, the opposition 9 court days before it, the reply 5. Neither motion is briefed that way. CCP § 659a counts forward from the notice, with no hearing to count back from: the moving brief within 10 days of filing the notice of intention, the opposition 10 days after the brief is served, and the reply 5 days after the opposition is served. CCP § 629(b) applies the same periods to JNOV. If you took a new trial or JNOV briefing date from this site before September 21, 2026, recompute it. On a notice of intention filed Monday, October 5, 2026, with the papers served by hand, the brief is due Thursday, October 15, the opposition Monday, October 26 and the reply Monday, November 2. The date field on these two motions now means the day the notice was filed, or for the responding party the day the brief was served on you. A matter saved before the change holds a hearing date in that field, so it is not recomputed and says so; enter it again. The result also gives the § 660(c) last day for the court to rule when a notice of entry date is entered. Applying the § 1013 and § 1010.6 service extensions to the opposition and reply is this site's reading of those sections' text, not a holding.
A saved motion computed its outside deadline from the wrong service method
The correction below reached the motion calculator on August 25. 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 August 27, 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 July 24, 2026, with the demurrer going out by mail, the saved matter showed Friday, August 28. The deadline was Monday, August 24, 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.
One 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, 842). 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, August 24, 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.
Misdemeanor § 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 modeled, 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 August 3, 2026, the misdemeanor track returns Thursday, September 17 and the felony track Friday, October 2.
A 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.
Calendar 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 August 13, 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.
Supplemental 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 March 15, 2027, trial the exchange displays Friday, January 22 after rolling back off a Sunday, while the supplemental row counted from Sunday, January 24 to Saturday, February 13 and then rolled forward past Presidents' Day to Tuesday, February 16. Counting from the displayed date gives Thursday, February 11, 2027, five days earlier. A test pins that case.
Summary 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.
A 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. January 1, 2028, is a Saturday, so the courthouse closure is Friday, December 31, 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 labeling fixes. Every computed date in this section is unchanged, which is why they are not mixed in above.

The Los Angeles trial binder page quoted a retired edition as current
The Los Angeles rows had been checked against the current Chapter Three of the local rules, effective July 1, 2026, but the narrative around them still came from the January 2022 edition. It sent the case to "the direct calendar judge" and quoted a sentence of Rule 3.25(f) that the current chapter no longer contains, and the page's own sources list described the older edition as the one every row was quoted from. Both now match the July 2026 chapter. The page had also answered "yes" to whether the county has a trial binder rule, when its binder rules reach only CEQA actions and prerogative writ proceedings. It now says so, and says separately that 26 Los Angeles departments require one. No deadline changed.
The disclaimer said department orders were not included, on pages showing them
The notice on every page said individual department standing orders were not included. From September 16 the trial binder pages publish department and judge orders where a court posts them, 26 on the Los Angeles page alone, so the notice contradicted the page it sat on. It now says those orders are included only where the court publishes them and they have been read, and that your own department may require more than the site shows.
A county page reported a finding it did not have
The Santa Barbara ex parte page said the county "sets no county-wide opposition deadline." The research recorded nothing either way on opposition, which is not the same thing. The page now says nothing is recorded and that this is not a finding that none exists.
Three Sacramento citations pointed at a document that no longer exists
Sacramento stopped publishing its local rules chapter by chapter, and the chapter PDF the trial-preparation rows cited was gone. They now cite the court's Local Rules and Standing Orders page, where the complete rules are posted. The rules themselves are unchanged.
The methodology page counted two unverified rules as verified
The per-rule table opened by saying every rule carried the date it was last checked, and two sentences later said two of them had not been checked. It now states the verified count by subtraction, so it agrees with the count on the homepage.
Projected holiday calendars were labeled verified
The 2027 through 2030 holiday sheets say on their face that they are projected from statute because the Judicial Council has not published those years, but the site's catalog and its search markup marked them verified. They are now marked projected, and a year moves to verified on its own once the Council publishes it. The closure dates did not change.
Two 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 recognizing the citation, and both had survived earlier review because they were wrong consistently, so nothing on the site disagreed with them.
The 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.
Safe 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.
The March 31 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 March 26, 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.
A 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.

Court document templates built from the local rules
Court document templates for the counties whose trial rules have been regrouped into the documents they ask for: a pleading-paper template with the court's required sections already placed, and a reference sheet of what each document must contain. The document is built in your browser and your case details are not sent anywhere; the download needs a signed-in account. The pleading downloads were taken down on September 18 when the line numbers were found not to line up with the text, and went back up on September 21 once the numbering was rebuilt.
Trial binder requirements for all 58 superior courts
What each court wants before trial: the trial documents each of the 58 superior courts asks for and the date each runs from, which is usually a conference the court sets rather than the trial date. Each rule quotes the court's own text and names the edition read, and where a court publishes department or judge orders those are included too, with a statewide index of the departments that publish one.
Expert witness exchange, on its own page
The expert track was reachable only as the third option on the deposition calculator. It now has its own page: the § 2034.230(b) exchange date, the expert deposition window and the cutoffs that meet in the last month before trial. Same engine, no change to any date.
Every ex parte county has its own page
Between August 31 and September 4 the other sixteen counties in the ex parte calculator joined Los Angeles with a page of their own, each on where that county's rule departs from the statewide default: a reservation that decides whether the application is heard, a court that rules on the papers with no hearing, a filing deadline that depends on the hearing time. Start from the county ex parte rule sheet.
Motion for trial preference, pending sign-off
The motion calculator now includes the motion for trial preference under CCP § 36, briefed on the ordinary § 1005(b) chain because § 36 sets no deadline for bringing it. It was listed on the methodology page as not yet verified until it was countersigned on September 29, 2026.
Ex 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.
Printable 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.
Every 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.

Every signed rule now carries September 29, 2026
At the close of the September 2026 full-site review, the attorney who maintains the site re-attested every signed rule as of September 29, 2026, and the 2026 court holiday list was compared again, date for date, with the Judicial Council's published calendar (14 of 14 match). The verification date shown across the site moved from August 17 to September 29. The notes on the methodology page keep the date each rule was first read against its source. No computed date changed with it.
The calendar button now says Outlook, and where the file goes
The calendar button on every result and on a saved matter reads "Add to Outlook or any calendar", and after you click it the page says where the file goes in classic Outlook, Outlook on the web and Google Calendar. The file itself is unchanged.
Outlook first on the subscribe buttons, and a link for the Outlook add-in
On the docket, matter and court closure feeds, Add to Outlook is now the first button and Google the second, with a line on where the address goes in classic Outlook. The docket panel on your account page has a button that copies the link the Outlook add-in asks for. The feeds themselves are unchanged.
What you type into a calculator stays out of the analytics
The calculators write their inputs into the address bar so a result can be linked, and Google Analytics and Vercel Analytics both record the address of every page view. So the dates and choices entered into a calculator were reaching both, although the privacy page said neither received them. Both now receive the page address without the calculator inputs, including on the hits recorded each time a calculator updates the address with a new result. The address bar itself is unchanged, so a copied result link still carries them.
Saved deadlines in your own calendar, and add-ins for Google and Outlook
A saved matter can now be subscribed to rather than downloaded, so its entries follow the matter when a date moves, and one subscription can cover every matter you save, now and later. The case organizer explains both. The address is the credential, so anyone holding it can read those deadlines, and the page offering it says so. A Google Calendar add-on writes the same dates as ordinary events, and an Outlook add-in lists them beside your mail. The Outlook one cannot write events yet.
A month grid, and the closure calendar for other sites
The calendar puts every saved deadline across every matter on one month, with the court closures around them. Separately, a law library or bar association page can now embed the court closure calendar with one script tag rather than keeping its own holiday table by hand.
The site now names its author
The August 13 entry below records the decision to publish anonymously. That was reversed on September 3: /about now names Jacob H. Katz and every page carries the byline. What the name does not do is make a date right, which is why this record, the per-rule dates and the citations on every row are still the part to check.
A matter can be saved without an account
Saving a matter used to require signing in by email first. A matter is now kept in your browser straight away, and an account is needed only for reminder emails or for the same matters on a second device. Signing in later offers to move the ones you already saved; it asks rather than assuming, because a shared computer may hold someone else's.
Reminder emails are being delivered
A saved matter can email you ahead of each deadline, and until August 28 the site said those emails did not arrive. The sending service had been rejecting the site's credentials. New credentials went in on August 27, and the next two scheduled runs delivered, which was confirmed at the sending service rather than in the site's own logs. The site now describes reminders as working. They stay off until you switch them on, and they are a convenience, not a docketing service of record.
A 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 August 27 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.
A 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.
Results 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.
Print produced a blank page on three calculators
Fixed. The printed sheet carries the generated date and the citations.
Anonymity 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

Every rule carries its own verification date, shown in the methodology table. The last full pass was signed off on August 17, 2026. It read the values the engine then used against the official text on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, or courts.ca.gov for the Rules of Court and the holiday calendar, rather than confirming them from memory, with two kinds of exception: motion entries that carry no period of their own, whose cited sections were spot-checked rather than read, and a few values checked when the site launched in July and not read again. Three corrections came out of it and are listed above. On September 29, 2026 the maintaining attorney re-attested every signed rule as of that date, at the close of a full-site review that read again every rule it changed, and rules still awaiting sign-off are listed as not yet verified.

Two things these dates do not cover, because saying so is the point. The county local rules carry their own dates, per county, and were not part of those passes. 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.

One limit on what a date means. Rules covered by the same pass share that pass's date, so a date names the last pass that covered a rule, not that it was the only rule read that day.

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.