Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00005155-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 14, 2024

02/16/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00005155-CU-WT-CTL GOMEZ VS PACIFIC STEEL GROUP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Dismiss, 01/11/2024

The Motion (ROA # 42) of Defendant Pacific Steel Group ('Defendant') for an order dismissing the above captioned matter for failure to prosecute by Plaintiff ARTURO GOMEZ ('Plaintiff'), is DENIED.

'The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.' Code Civ. Proc. 583.410(a).

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

A party seeking dismissal must serve and file a notice of motion at least 45 days before the date set for hearing of the motion. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1342(a).

The Court has discretion to shorten the 45-day time period. Eliceche v. Federal Land Bank Assn. (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 1349, 1369.

This Motion was filed less than 45 days before this hearing date. The Court exercises its discretion to address the merits of this Motion.

In ruling on this Motion, the Court must consider all matters relevant to a proper determination of the Motion, including (as relevant here): the diligence of the parties in pursuing discovery or other pretrial proceedings, including any extraordinary relief sought by either party; the nature and complexity of the case; the nature of any delay attributable to either party; and whether the interests of justice are best served by dismissal or trial of the case. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1342(e).

In this case, it appears Plaintiff is diligently working to substitute in a representative of the estate through the filing of an amended pleading so that this action can continue. There is no evidence suggesting the abandonment of this action. The Court has applied the relevant factors and declines to dismiss this action.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3075465