Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 19STCV37868, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV37868    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 74

Rima Badalyan v. Starbucks Coffee Company

Motion to Dismiss

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff Rima Badalyan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Starbucks Coffee Company (Defendant). The complaint alleges discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to enter into an interactive process, unlawful discharge, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

            On November 29, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution […] if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410, subd. (a).) “Dismissal shall be pursuant to the procedure and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by rules adopted by the Judicial Council.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410, subd. (b).)

            Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1340, the court may dismiss an action for delay in prosecution if the action has not been brought to the trial or conditionally settled within two years after the action was commenced against the defendant.

DISCUSSION 

            The court finds that a dismissal is not warranted under the circumstances. On February 16, 2023, the court ordered the matter to be returned to arbitration. Since then, Plaintiff has taken steps to initiate arbitration with AAA and JAMS (Golob Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4; Ex. 1; Golob Decl., ¶ 11; Ex. 10.) Moreover, Defendant has not persuaded the court that the parties will not get a hearing date before the five-year mandatory dismissal deadline. (Code Civ. Proc., 583.310.) And as Plaintiff notes, Emergency rule 10 extends that deadline by six months. (Cal. Rules of Court, Appen. I, rule 10, subd. (a).) Thus, the court declines to exercise its discretion to dismiss for delay in prosecution.

CONCLUSION 

The court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Defendant shall give notice.