Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: BC674604, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC674604    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: M

Morrow et al v. Wells Fargo Bank

BC674604

Court’s Tentative Ruling re Dismissal Under Five-Year Rule

The Court has set this matter for potential dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.  This matter was filed on September 1, 2017, with Wells Fargo’s motion for arbitration granted on July 6, 2018.  On February 24, 2023, Plaintiffs for the first time initiated arbitration proceedings.   Taking into consideration additional time set forth by Emergency Rule 10, this five-year time period would have run on March 1, 2023.

Whether the matter must be dismissed turns on the issue of whether the arbitration stay also stayed the five-year rule.  Otherwise, the matter would violate the five-year statutory time frame for bringing this matter to trial.  In Lockhart-Mummery v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 891, 896, the Court of Appeal in the Second District held that an arbitration stay does not stay the five-year rule. The Lockhart case reasons that “some standard” needs to be in place to “prevent matters from maundering about for unlimited periods” which should apply in the arbitration context. (Id. at 896.)  The Court recognizes that this rule has not been followed in other districts, but it is controlling authority on this Court.  (See Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1799.) The Court further notes that there have been unpublished Second District decisions commenting on Lockhart and Brock, and finding Brock the more persuasive of the two cases.  Those decision, however, remained unpublished and would provide no basis for this Court not to follow the published decision of Lockhart. 

              The facts presented to the Court are that Plaintiffs failed to do anything over the last four and a half years to proceed in arbitration despite numerous continuances from the Court and the Court informing Plaintiffs over a year ago that the five-year statute would run if the matter was not completed.  While Plaintiffs indicated that wanted to retain a new attorney, Plaintiffs failed to retain an attorney for over four years, with no updates as to the process.  As to Mr. Morrow’s medical condition, there was no information provided to the Court why that condition prevented Plaintiffs from completing the arbitration especially in light of the virtual platform used the last several years. 

              For these reasons, the Court concludes that the five-year statute in this matter expired as of March 1, 2023.  The matter is dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.