(a) Policy favoring an opportunity for resolution without trial The intent of this rule is to promote opportunities for resolution of unlawful detainer cases before trial. Courts should encourage participation, to the extent feasible, in at least one opportunity for resolution before trial, including but not limited to a settlement conference, mediation, or another alternative dispute resolution process.
Rule 3.2005.Settlement opportunities
Division 20. Unlawful Detainers · Adopted 2005 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceRule 3.2005 states a policy favoring pretrial resolution in unlawful detainer cases and lets the court exempt parties in a mandatory settlement conference from the standard five-court-day deadline for filing a settlement conference statement.
Full Text of Rule 3.2005
Plain-English Summary
Eviction cases move on some of the fastest timelines in California civil procedure, often resolving within weeks of filing. Rule 3.2005 opens by stating a policy goal for that compressed schedule: courts should still make room for a chance to settle before trial, whether through a settlement conference, mediation, or another form of alternative dispute resolution. The rule does not force anyone into mediation or make a party pay for it. It directs courts to build in the opportunity where they can.
The second half of the rule solves a scheduling conflict that opportunity can create. Rule 3.1380(c) ordinarily gives parties five court days before a mandatory settlement conference to file a settlement conference statement, a timeline built for the pace of ordinary civil litigation. Unlawful detainer cases move faster than that, so five court days can be hard to fit in before trial. Rule 3.2005(b) lets the court exempt unlawful detainer parties from that specific deadline, freeing the court to set a shorter or otherwise more workable schedule for the statement without derailing the settlement conference itself.
Together the two subdivisions strike a balance: keep the door open for settlement in eviction cases, but do not let a timing rule written for slower-moving cases block the door from closing on time.
Advisory Committee Comment
The following comment is published by the Judicial Council of California alongside the rule itself — not commentary from this site.
The Judicial Council has adopted an optional form—Eviction Case (Unlawful Detainer) Stipulation (form UD-155)—that can be used to advise the court about any settlement that has been reached before trial. Subdivision (a). The committee notes that parties may choose but cannot be required to participate in for- cost mediation or alternative dispute resolution (ADR). This rule is not intended in any way to mandate for-cost mediation or ADR. Subdivision (b). Because unlawful detainer cases generally proceed on an expedited basis, this exemption allows parties in unlawful detainer cases to participate in and complete mandatory settlement conferences on shorter timelines. Nothing in this rule, including the exemption set out in subdivision (b), is intended to preclude a court from shortening other deadlines related to alternative dispute resolution processes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Rule 3.2005 require mediation in a California eviction case?
No. It states a policy favoring opportunities to resolve unlawful detainer cases before trial, including settlement conferences, mediation, or other dispute resolution, but it does not force any party into a for-cost process.
What deadline can a court exempt unlawful detainer parties from under Rule 3.2005?
The five-court-day deadline for filing a settlement conference statement before a mandatory settlement conference, set out in Rule 3.1380(c). Rule 3.2005(b) lets the court exempt unlawful detainer parties from that specific timeline.
Why does unlawful detainer get its own settlement rule instead of using the general one?
Because eviction cases proceed on an expedited schedule that the general mandatory settlement conference timeline was not built for. Rule 3.2005 adapts that timeline so a settlement conference can still happen without slowing down the case.
Amendment History
Rule 3.2005 adopted effective January 1, 2024.
Source & verification. Rule text is reproduced verbatim from
the Judicial Council of California. Adopted by the Judicial Council of California.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: unlawful detainer settlement conference Californiaeviction case mediation rule Californiasettlement conference statement deadline unlawful detainer