Judge David J. Cowan, Case Number: PC058067, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Virginia Guzman v. Maricela Guzman, et al., Case No. PC058067 (Related Case No. 17STPB11102)

This OSC addresses whether a Civil case related to a Probate case was brought timely to trial where there was significant delay in the Probate case going to trial.

On October 26, 2017, Virginia filed a complaint in this case against her sister Maricela and her husband Joe Diaz related to some $41,900 she allegedly gave them for safekeeping.[1]

On December 13, 2017, Virginia filed a petition in the Matter of the Guzman Revocable Living Trust, Case no. 17STPB11102 (“the Probate case”), against Maricela, her brother Ernesto, Jr. and sister Martha for determination of the validity of that trust and as to ownership of real property located at 339/341 W. Garfield Avenue in Glendale.

On August 31, 2018, Maricela and her brother Ernesto, Jr. and sister Martha filed a cross-complaint in this case, contending that the sums in question were rental payments by Virginia for the real property the ownership of which was the subject of the Probate case. The Court continues the trial date of November 13, 2018 to February 4, 2019.

On December 27, 2018, Dept.1 of the Court ruled that this case was related to the Probate case (to which the Court had previously related an unlawful detainer case, Case No. 18PDUD00396, against Virginia concerning possession of this property.) The civil case was sent to Dept. 3 at the Mosk courthouse where the undersigned was at the time assigned in a Probate courtroom.

On June 14, 2019, at a status conference, the Court (by the undersigned) set both cases for trial on November 12, 2019.

On November 12 and 26, 2019, trial was continued to ultimately February 14 2020 by stipulation due to medical reasons of counsel for Virginia.

On February 21, 2020, the Court (by now Judge Paul Suzuki) continued trial to July 24, 2020.

On July 24, 2020, trial was continued to August 21, 2020 due to failure of counsel for Virginia to appear. Counsel advised the Court that Ernesto, Jr. had passed away.

On August 21, 2020, a request for a jury trial was made and trial was continued to September 4, 2020 for a hearing on a motion for summary judgment.

On September 18, 2020, the Court permits a trial by jury and sets a trial setting conference on January 15, 2021.

On October 18, 2021, the Court took the civil trial off calendar (due to the request for jury trial) and proceeded to the bench trial of the Probate case. The Court declared a mistrial of the trial in the Probate case. The case could not proceed as Ernesto, Jr. had passed away, was an interested party and required the appointment of a personal representative. Trial that had been scheduled to start October 19, 2021 was re-set as a non-jury trial for July 27, 2022.

On June 24, 2022, the Court (by now Judge Ana Maria Luna) continued the July 27, 2022 trial date to April 4, 2023.

On February 9, 2023, this case and the Probate case were reassigned to the undersigned for trial in Dept. 200 of the Beverly Hills courthouse where he was by then assigned.

On February 24, 2023, at a status conference of both cases, this Court vacated the trial dates, given there was no answer on file to the cross-complaint, and indicated that trial of the Probate case would be conducted prior to the trial in this case.

On July 24, 2023, in the Probate case, this Court overruled the Objections to the Tentative Statement of Decision, filed May 23, 2023, adopted the Tentative as its Final Statement of Decision and dismissed with prejudice the petition filed December 13, 2017 as untimely filed.

On October 5, 2023, at a status conference herein, the Court issued OSCs re: failure of counsel for Virginia to appear and concerning bringing this case to trial and set those for hearing on November 9, 2023.

On November 9, 2023, the Court discharged the OSC re: failure to appear and continued this OSC for January 10, 2024 and briefing beforehand.

On November 27, 2023, Virginia filed a brief and supporting declaration of counsel in response to the OSC.

On January 9, 2024, Maricela filed a brief and supporting declarations in response to Virginia’s brief responding to the OSC.

On January 10, 2024 the Court continued the OSC to February 22, 2024 due to the late filing of the response.

On January 23, 2024, Virginia filed a reply brief. Virginia contends that a personal representative for Ernesto, Jr. was not appointed until just last week on January 17, 2024.[2]

Virginia contends, in the alternative, that the time within which to bring this case to trial is not until October 18, 2024, three years after the mistrial in the Probate case, or not until May 2027 because the Court’s decision to try the Probate case before this case made it impossible for her to bring this case to trial from December 2018 when the cases were related through April 2023 when the Probate case was tried.

Maricela contends that the five-year statute, not the three-year statute, is applicable as the mistrial was in the Probate case, not this case. In turn, Maricela contends there has been no stay or other tolling of the five-year statute. Maricela contends that this case must be dismissed as the five years and six months expired on or about April 26, 2023.

CCP sec. 583.320 provides, however, in relevant part that if a trial has commenced but no judgment is entered because of a mistrial that the action be brought to trial within three years of the order declaring a mistrial.

CCP sec. 583.340 provides in relevant part that in computing the time within an action shall be brought to trial there shall be excluded when bringing the action to trial if it was (b) stayed or enjoined or (c) it was “impossible, impracticable, or futile” to do so.

Initially, contrary to Virginia’s claim, this case was not consolidated with the Probate case and arguments based upon that assumption are rejected. The cases were merely related so they could be managed by one judge. Hence, the Court does not find that the mistrial in the Probate case makes this case subject to the three-year statute. The effect of that decision was merely that the Probate trial would need to be heard again and therefore the time for the petition in that case to be brought to trial would need to then be pursuant to the three-year statute. Since this case was not tried with the Probate case, it would not make sense to extend the time within which it needed to be brought to trial. Moreover, as a collateral matter, it now appears that the basis for the mistrial may have been in error: Ernesto, Jr. already had a personal representative.

Therefore, the Court now addresses application of the five-year statute: The Court did not per se stay or enjoin trial in this case. However, this bench officer at least believed that it did not make sense to try this related civil case until a decision was made in the Probate case as the facts at issue herein depended upon how the facts in the Probate case were decided:[3] If Virginia was in fact a part owner of the property, the contention of the cross-complaint that she would have been paying rent would likely not make sense. By contrast, if Virginia was not the owner, her making rental payments might make sense. Moreover, where Virginia had requested a jury trial, normal procedure would have required the bench trial be decided before any jury trial. This civil case would have “trailed” the Probate case. In turn, it appears Judge Suzuki also believed that the Probate case needed to be tried first as that is what he did by delaying the civil trial and attempting to proceed forward with trial of the Probate case. As a result, the Court finds that on some level it was “impossible” for purposes of CCP sec. 583.340, to bring this civil case to trial pending conclusion of the trial of the Probate case. Following that theory, the Court could conceivably exclude from the time within which Virginia needed to have brought this case to trial from when this Court first held a status conference on June 14, 2019 to July 24, 2023.

On the other hand, trial of the Probate case was delayed significantly, including by reason of a seemingly unnecessary mistrial. Further, the record indicates several continuances were due to counsel for Virginia not appearing at hearings. Virginia should not be wholly excused from moving forward with this case for this entire time and thereby unreasonably extend resolution of this case. Notably, this case also could not proceed to trial because Virginia had not filed an answer to the cross-complaint. This should have been done and was within the control of Virginia and counsel regardless of the status of the Probate case. Similarly, there has not been compliance yet with filing of the documents required before trial, including joint witness and exhibit lists, proposed jury instructions, if applicable, and trial briefs. Therefore, the Court intends to allow tolling only for some of this time, given that the Court had never excused Virginia from moving forward with this case due to the Probate case or imposed a stay on all proceedings in this case and Virginia could have avoided some of this delay. (See discussion of relevant considerations in Gaines v. Fidelity Nat’l. Title Ins. Co. (2016) 62 Cal.4^th 1081 and ability of court to determine for what periods there should be tolling) The Court therefore exercises its discretion, consistent with the policy of hearing cases on the merits, to extend the statute expiration only from April 23, 2023 to December 23, 2024, not the entire time the case was waiting resolution of the Probate case.[4] In this way, defendants can be assured this case will be tried this year. The Court will set a trial date at the trial setting conference concurrent with the hearing on this OSC.[5]

[1] For ease of reference, the Court refers to the parties by their first names without intending any disrespect.

[2] In fact, according to Ex. A to the notice filed January 17, 2024, Maricela was appointed personal representative on August 4, 2021. Significantly, this was prior to the mistrial on October 18, 2021 that was based upon Ernesto, Jr. allegedly not then having a personal representative.

[3] Though the Court cannot recall specifically that it held this view when it was assigned the case previously, the Court believes it may have conveyed that belief to the parties at that time. The Court cannot rule out that it did not do so, notwithstanding there are not orders in the record as to this issue.

[4] While through a significant period of the time excluded it was also “impractical” to bring the case to trial due to the difficulties of holding a jury trial due to COVID, the CRC six-month extension already factors in this consideration.

[5] The parties are ordered to file before the status conference their positions concerning what effect, if any, the findings in the final statement of decision in the Probate case have on the trial in this case. The Court also requests a report on the UD case and how that impacts this case.