Yes, you can fill out California Form CM-110, the Case Management Statement, on your own if you carefully read each item, gather the right facts, and follow the California Rules of Court 3.725 timing rules. The form tells the judge where your civil case stands, what you still need to do, and whether the case is ready for trial, and missing details can lead to sanctions, dismissed claims, or a vacated trial date.
The biggest problem CM-110 solves is case drift. Civil cases stall when parties do not talk about service, discovery, settlement, or trial readiness, and judges then lose control of the docket. According to the Judicial Council of California 2023 Court Statistics Report, more than 1.1 million unlimited and limited civil cases were filed in superior courts in fiscal year 2021–2022, and case management conferences are the main tool judges use to keep that volume moving.
Here is what you will learn in this guide:
- 📝 How to complete every line item on the current Judicial Council Form CM-110 without guessing
- ⏰ The exact filing and service deadlines under CRC 3.725 and how late filings get sanctioned
- ⚖️ How CM-110 interacts with limited civil cases under the post-2024 $35,000 threshold
- 🤝 How to handle ADR, jury demands, and settlement disclosures the right way
- 🚫 The seven most common CM-110 mistakes that wreck trial dates and how to dodge them
What Form CM-110 Is and Why It Exists
California Form CM-110 is the official Case Management Statement approved by the Judicial Council of California for use in every general civil case. It gives the trial judge a snapshot of the case so the court can set deadlines, schedule trial, and decide whether the parties should try alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The form is mandatory in unlimited civil cases and is also used in many limited civil matters when the local court orders it.
The federal civil system uses Rule 16 conferences under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 16 to handle the same job, but California built CM-110 to standardize the process across all 58 counties. The plain-English purpose is simple: the judge wants one document that lists every party, every claim, every defense, and every roadblock. The consequence of skipping the form is steep, because CRC 3.728 lets a judge issue an order to show cause, impose monetary sanctions up to $1,500, or even strike pleadings.
For example, when a small-business owner named Daniel sued a former vendor for breach of contract and skipped his first CM-110 filing, his Sacramento judge issued a $250 sanction and reset the schedule. A common misconception is that CM-110 is “just paperwork,” but judges treat it as the backbone of the case and use it to measure attorney and party diligence. The form is updated periodically, and the January 1, 2024 revision is the current version you should download.
Who Must File CM-110
Every party in an unlimited civil case must file CM-110, either jointly or separately, no later than 15 calendar days before the case management conference (CMC). That includes plaintiffs, defendants, cross-complainants, cross-defendants, and intervenors who have appeared in the action. The plain rule is in CRC 3.725(a), which states the duty to file applies to “each party.”
The consequence of missing the filing window is direct. Judges can sanction the non-filing party, vacate the CMC, or treat the missing statement as a failure to prosecute. A real-world example: when Priya, a self-represented plaintiff in a personal injury case, forgot to file her CM-110 in Alameda County, the judge issued an order to show cause and required her to appear in person to explain. A common misconception is that only the plaintiff has to file, but every appearing party shares the duty.
Limited vs. Unlimited Civil Cases
Since January 1, 2024, the limited civil case threshold rose to $35,000, and unlimited civil cases involve amounts above $35,000. CM-110 is required in unlimited cases by statewide rule, but many superior courts also require it in limited civil matters by local rule, including Los Angeles Local Rule 3.25 and San Diego Local Rule 2.1.15.
The consequence of using the wrong jurisdictional designation is a possible reclassification motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 403.040, which can delay the case for months. For example, Marcus filed a $40,000 wage claim as a limited case to save filing fees, and the defendant successfully reclassified the case, costing Marcus extra fees and a six-month delay. A common misconception is that CM-110 is only for “big” cases, but local rules often pull limited cases into the same case management track.
Step-by-Step: How to Fill Out CM-110
The current CM-110 contains roughly 19 numbered items plus signature blocks, and each item ties to a specific California Rule of Court or statute. Always download the fillable PDF directly from the Judicial Council forms page so you have the latest revision. Type your answers, do not handwrite them, because most courts now require electronic filing under CRC 2.253.
Caption, Case Number, and Item 1 (Party Information)
The caption section at the top mirrors your complaint and answer. Enter the attorney or self-represented party’s name, the State Bar number if any, the firm address, the telephone, the email, and the party represented. The court name must match the exact branch where the case is pending, including the district within counties like Los Angeles that have multiple courthouses.
The consequence of a wrong case number is rejection at the e-filing portal, which can cause you to miss the 15-day deadline. For example, Elena mistyped one digit on her case number in Orange County and her CM-110 was rejected three days before the CMC, forcing an emergency ex parte. Item 1 asks whether the statement is filed by one party, two parties, or all parties jointly, and a joint filing under CRC 3.724 is preferred because it shows the judge the parties are talking.
Item 2 (Complaint and Cross-Complaint) and Item 3 (Service)
Item 2 lists the dates each pleading was filed. Use the file-stamp date, not the date you mailed it. Item 3 confirms whether all named parties have been served, have appeared, or have been dismissed, and it requires you to explain any party not yet served.
The consequence of failing to serve within the three-year service deadline in CCP § 583.210 is mandatory dismissal under CCP § 583.250. For example, when David sued three contractors but only served two within three years, the judge dismissed the third defendant on the court’s own motion. A common misconception is that “I tried” is enough, but you must show reasonable diligence to extend the deadline.
Item 4 (Description of Case)
Item 4 is a short narrative of what the case is about. Keep it neutral and factual, around 2–4 sentences. Do not argue the merits or insult the other side, because the judge reads this first and forms an early impression.
The consequence of an inflammatory description is a poor first impression and possible early skepticism from the bench. For example, Lina’s attorney described the defendant as “a serial fraudster,” and the judge struck the language and warned counsel about civility under the California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism. A common misconception is that Item 4 is your chance to win the case, but it is a roadmap, not a closing argument.
Item 5 (Jury or Nonjury Trial)
Item 5 asks whether the party demands a jury or agrees to a court trial. A jury demand requires posting jury fees of $150 under CCP § 631 within the deadline tied to the first CMC. Missing the fee deadline waives the jury right.
The consequence of waiver is severe and rarely undone. For example, Tomas forgot to post jury fees in his employment case, and the judge denied his later motion to be relieved from waiver, forcing a bench trial. A common misconception is that you can demand a jury later, but Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (2005) reminds us that jury rights, once waived, are hard to revive.
Item 6 (Trial Date)
Item 6 asks whether the case has been assigned a trial date and proposes one if not. The court’s goal under the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act is to dispose of unlimited civil cases within 24 months of filing.
The consequence of a date that is too far out is judicial pushback. For example, Renee asked for a trial date 30 months out in San Francisco and the judge refused, setting trial at month 14 instead. A common misconception is that you can pick any date, but judges anchor to the delay reduction standards, not to attorney convenience.
Item 7 (Estimated Length of Trial)
Item 7 asks for a realistic time estimate. Be honest. Underestimating leads to mistrials when time runs out, and overestimating burdens the court calendar.
The consequence of a bad estimate can include trailing the case to a different judge or losing your preferred trial slot. For example, Marcus estimated three days for a complex construction defect trial, and the case took nine, causing two mistrials. A common misconception is that shorter estimates get earlier trial dates, but judges remember inaccurate estimates and may distrust the lawyer next time.
Item 8 (Trial Representation) and Item 9 (Preferences)
Item 8 lists the attorneys who will try the case, including any specially appearing counsel. Item 9 asks whether anyone has scheduling conflicts, religious observances, or pre-paid vacations during the proposed trial window.
The consequence of hiding a conflict is denial of a continuance later. For example, Aisha’s attorney did not list a long-planned bar exam date and the judge refused to move trial. A common misconception is that judges always accommodate attorney schedules, but Item 9 is your only clean chance to lock in conflicts.
Item 10 (Alternative Dispute Resolution)
Item 10 is one of the most important sections. It asks whether the parties have stipulated to ADR, whether they want a court-connected mediator, and what type of ADR they prefer (mediation, neutral evaluation, binding or non-binding arbitration, or judicial settlement conference). The legal anchor is CRC 3.221, which requires courts to give parties an ADR information package.
The consequence of ignoring ADR is a court order forcing it anyway, often at a less convenient time. For example, Brandon skipped Item 10, and the judge ordered mandatory mediation 30 days before trial when discovery was already closed. A common misconception is that ADR is optional in every case, but many superior courts have local rules requiring early ADR participation, including Contra Costa Local Rule 4.
Item 11 (Insurance)
Item 11 asks whether there is insurance coverage, who the carrier is, and whether the carrier disputes coverage. This drives settlement value.
The consequence of hiding coverage is potential discovery sanctions under CCP § 2017.210, which makes insurance information discoverable. For example, David’s defense counsel left Item 11 blank, and the judge granted a motion to compel and awarded $1,200 in fees. A common misconception is that insurance is “private,” but in California civil litigation it is openly discoverable.
Item 12 (Jurisdiction)
Item 12 covers any jurisdictional issues, including bankruptcy stays, federal preemption, or forum disputes. A pending bankruptcy automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 freezes the state case.
The consequence of pushing a case forward against a stayed party is a void order. For example, Lina’s judgment against a Chapter 7 debtor was voided when the bankruptcy court learned of the violation. A common misconception is that the stay only protects money judgments, but it covers nearly all litigation activity against the debtor.
Item 13 (Related Cases, Consolidation, and Coordination)
Item 13 asks whether the case is related to others under CRC 3.300 or should be consolidated under CCP § 1048.
The consequence of failing to flag related cases is duplicate discovery, inconsistent rulings, and possible sanctions. For example, Tomas filed two near-identical wage claims and was sanctioned $750 for not filing a notice of related case. A common misconception is that “related” means the same parties, but related cases can involve different parties tied by common questions of fact or law.
Item 14 (Bifurcation)
Item 14 asks whether issues should be tried separately, such as liability before damages. The authority is CCP § 598.
The consequence of skipping bifurcation in complex cases is a longer, more confusing trial. For example, in Renee’s product liability case, the judge bifurcated punitive damages and saved three days of trial. A common misconception is that bifurcation is only for huge cases, but even mid-size disputes benefit when one issue could end the case.
Item 15 (Other Motions)
Item 15 lists motions the party expects to file before trial, like summary judgment under CCP § 437c or motions in limine.
The consequence of not flagging a key motion is the judge refusing to hear it later, especially summary judgment, which has a mandatory 81-day notice rule. For example, Aisha’s attorney filed an MSJ 70 days before trial and the judge denied it as untimely. A common misconception is that you can spring motions late, but trial readiness orders often lock the calendar.
Item 16 (Discovery)
Item 16 lists the discovery completed, the discovery still planned, and any disputes. Discovery cutoffs run 30 days before trial under CCP § 2024.020, and expert exchange runs under CCP § 2034.220.
The consequence of ignoring discovery cutoffs is exclusion of evidence. For example, Brandon served interrogatories 25 days before trial and the answers were never compelled. A common misconception is that you can stipulate around the cutoff, but the court must approve any extension under CCP § 2024.060.
Item 17 (Economic Litigation)
Item 17 applies to limited civil cases governed by the Economic Litigation Procedures at CCP §§ 90–100, which restrict discovery to save costs.
The consequence of forgetting these limits is wasted time on disallowed discovery. For example, Maria served 35 special interrogatories in a $20,000 case, and the court struck the excess as exceeding the 35-question cap. A common misconception is that limited civil cases follow the same discovery rules as unlimited cases, but they do not.
Item 18 (Other Issues)
Item 18 is a free-text catch-all for things like translator needs, ADA accommodations under CRC 1.100, or language access requirements.
The consequence of not requesting accommodations is being unprepared at trial. For example, Elena needed a Mandarin interpreter and only mentioned it on the trial date, causing a continuance. A common misconception is that the court provides interpreters automatically, but Government Code § 68561 requires advance requests.
Item 19 (Meet and Confer) and Item 20 (Case Management Orders)
Item 19 asks whether the parties met and conferred at least 30 days before the CMC, as CRC 3.724 requires. Item 20 asks whether prior case management orders have been complied with.
The consequence of skipping the meet-and-confer is sanctions and a wasted CMC. For example, Daniel’s attorney admitted no meet-and-confer occurred, and the judge imposed a $500 sanction. A common misconception is that a single email satisfies the duty, but courts expect a good faith discussion of every CM-110 topic.
Three Common CM-110 Scenarios
These scenarios reflect the most frequent fact patterns where CM-110 trips parties up. Each scenario uses a 2-column table to show the choice and its outcome.
Scenario 1: Self-Represented Plaintiff in a Personal Injury Case
| Filing Choice | Outcome on the Case |
|---|---|
| Marks “no” to ADR on Item 10 without explanation | Judge orders mandatory mediation 60 days later, costing time |
| Posts jury fees within 365 days of first appearance | Preserves jury trial right under CCP § 631 |
| Lists realistic 5-day trial estimate on Item 7 | Judge sets trial within 18 months and respects estimate |
| Forgets to disclose insurance carrier on Item 11 | Defense files motion to compel and wins fees |
Scenario 2: Defendant in a Breach of Contract Case
| Filing Choice | Outcome on the Case |
|---|---|
| Joins plaintiff in joint CM-110 filing | Judge views parties as cooperative, fewer orders |
| Flags planned summary judgment on Item 15 | Judge reserves the 81-day window before trial |
| Skips meet-and-confer (Item 19) | Court imposes $500 sanction under CRC 2.30 |
| Identifies bankruptcy stay on Item 12 | Court stays case, avoids void orders |
Scenario 3: Multi-Party Construction Defect Case
| Filing Choice | Outcome on the Case |
|---|---|
| Requests bifurcation on Item 14 | Saves trial days by trying liability first |
| Lists related HOA case on Item 13 | Judge consolidates discovery and avoids duplication |
| Demands binding arbitration on Item 10 without all parties’ consent | Court denies request, orders mediation instead |
| Estimates 20 days for trial on Item 7 | Judge assigns long-cause department, locks calendar |
Mistakes to Avoid
Filing CM-110 looks easy but small errors cause big problems. The list below pulls from the most common errors judges flag in case management conferences.
- Filing late. Filing inside the 15-day window violates CRC 3.725 and triggers sanctions.
- Using an outdated form. Old versions miss new items, and clerks reject them under CRC 1.31.
- Skipping the meet-and-confer. Missing the conference under CRC 3.724 leads to monetary sanctions.
- Not posting jury fees. Failing to post under CCP § 631 waives the jury right.
- Ignoring ADR (Item 10). Skipping ADR triggers court-ordered ADR at a worse time.
- Inflated trial estimates. Bad estimates burn judicial trust and lose calendar slots.
- Hiding insurance. Insurance is discoverable under CCP § 2017.210.
- Failing to flag related cases. Missing CRC 3.300 duties causes duplicate work.
- Forgetting accommodations. Late ADA or interpreter requests delay trial.
- Arguing the merits in Item 4. Judges expect a neutral case description, not advocacy.
Do’s and Don’ts
These quick rules help every filer. Each item ties to the consequence of getting it wrong.
Do’s
- Do download the current CM-110 from the Judicial Council site so you use the latest revision and avoid clerk rejection.
- Do file 15 calendar days before the CMC to comply with CRC 3.725 and avoid OSCs.
- Do meet and confer at least 30 days before the CMC under CRC 3.724 to avoid sanctions.
- Do post jury fees with the first appearance to preserve jury rights under CCP § 631.
- Do file a joint statement when possible, because judges favor cooperative parties and approve schedules faster.
Don’ts
- Do not handwrite the form because most courts require typed e-filings under CRC 2.253.
- Do not leave items blank, since blanks suggest you are unprepared and judges may continue the CMC.
- Do not insult the other side in Item 4, as it triggers civility warnings under the State Bar Civility Guidelines.
- Do not promise discovery you cannot finish before the CCP § 2024.020 cutoff, or you will face exclusion motions.
- Do not skip Item 10 ADR, because judges almost always order ADR anyway, just less conveniently.
Pros and Cons of Filing a Joint CM-110
Many parties file separate statements, but a joint filing has clear advantages and disadvantages.
Pros
- A joint filing signals cooperation, and judges reward cooperative parties with smoother schedules.
- A joint filing satisfies the meet-and-confer duty under CRC 3.724 without separate proof.
- A joint filing reduces filing fees in some courts because only one document goes through e-filing.
- A joint filing forces early agreement on trial length, which speeds up scheduling under the Delay Reduction Act.
- A joint filing reduces the risk of contradictory positions that a judge could later use against either side.
Cons
- A joint filing forces compromise, which may water down a strong tactical position.
- A joint filing requires extra coordination time, which can be hard with hostile opposing counsel.
- A joint filing may signal weakness if your side has more leverage to push trial faster.
- A joint filing must include all appearing parties, and one holdout can block the strategy.
- A joint filing can lock you into trial dates that later harm your witness scheduling.
Key Entities and Authorities You Should Know
CM-110 sits at the center of a network of California legal actors. Knowing each role helps you navigate the form.
- The Judicial Council of California drafts and revises CM-110.
- The California Rules of Court chapter on case management governs CM-110 deadlines.
- The California Code of Civil Procedure supplies the statutes for service, discovery, and trial setting.
- The State Bar of California enforces civility rules that apply to Item 4 narratives.
- Each Superior Court adds local rules that can change ADR and CMC procedures.
- The Trial Court Delay Reduction Act drives the 24-month disposition goals judges chase.
Notable Court Rulings on Case Management Compliance
California courts have repeatedly enforced CM-110 duties. In Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, the California Supreme Court held that local fast-track sanctions must be tied to actual statutory authority, shaping how judges issue CM-110 sanctions today. In Moyal v. Lanphear (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 491, the Court of Appeal upheld monetary sanctions for failure to comply with case management orders.
The takeaway is direct. Judges have wide discretion to sanction parties who ignore CM-110 duties, and appellate courts rarely reverse those sanctions. For example, Daniel’s $250 sanction in Sacramento was unappealable because his attorney could not show the judge abused discretion. A common misconception is that “harmless” CM-110 errors are not sanctionable, but the case law says otherwise.
Filing, Service, and E-Filing Logistics
CM-110 must be served on every other party at least 15 calendar days before the CMC. Service is governed by CCP § 1010.6 for electronic service and CCP § 1013 for mail service. Use Form POS-030 for proof of service by mail.
The consequence of bad service is a CMC continuance and possible sanctions. For example, Priya served CM-110 by personal delivery to opposing counsel’s old office, and the judge continued the CMC for 30 days. A common misconception is that emailing a courtesy copy counts as service, but it does not unless the parties have agreed to e-service in writing under CRC 2.251.
FAQs
Do I have to file CM-110 in every California civil case?
Yes. Every party in an unlimited civil case must file CM-110 under CRC 3.725, and many courts also require it in limited civil matters by local rule.
Can I file CM-110 jointly with the other side?
Yes. A joint filing under CRC 3.724 is encouraged, satisfies the meet-and-confer duty, and signals cooperation that judges reward with smoother schedules.
Will I get sanctioned if I file CM-110 late?
Yes. Under CRC 3.728 and CRC 2.30, judges can impose monetary sanctions, issue OSCs, or even strike pleadings for late filing.
Is CM-110 required in limited civil cases under $35,000?
No. Statewide rules do not require CM-110 in limited cases, but many counties impose it through local rules, so check the Superior Court local rules.
Do I lose my jury right if I skip Item 5?
Yes. Failing to demand a jury and post fees under CCP § 631 waives the jury right, and waivers are rarely undone by later motions.
Can I file CM-110 by mail or fax?
No. Most superior courts require electronic filing under CRC 2.253, and clerks reject paper filings except in narrow exceptions.
Will the judge order ADR if I refuse it on Item 10?
Yes. Judges routinely order mediation under CRC 3.221 even when parties decline, often at less convenient times before trial.
Do I need to disclose insurance on Item 11?
Yes. Insurance information is discoverable under CCP § 2017.210, and hiding it leads to motions to compel and fee awards.
Can I update CM-110 after I file it?
Yes. You can file a supplemental CM-110 before any later CMC, and judges expect updates when discovery, parties, or trial readiness change.
Will failing to meet and confer cancel the CMC?
No. The CMC still happens, but the judge can sanction the non-complying party under CRC 3.724 and treat the CMC as an OSC hearing.
Do self-represented parties get extra time to file CM-110?
No. Self-represented parties follow the same 15-day rule as attorneys under CRC 3.725, although judges sometimes show patience on first errors.
Can I be sanctioned for an inflated trial estimate on Item 7?
Yes. Judges can impose calendar sanctions, reassign the case, or deny continuances when an attorney’s prior estimate proves wildly inaccurate without good cause.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-100 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-120 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CM-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form SC-220 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form ADR-100 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-020 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs