Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: BC617526, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC617526    Hearing Date: September 6, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas Based on Five-Year Rule

Moving Party: Defendant TForce Freight, Inc. (formerly known as UPS Ground Freight, Inc.)

Resp. Party:    None

The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas is DISMISSED with prejudice from this matter.

BACKGROUND:

On April 19, 2016, Plaintiffs Robert Amaya, Sr., Robert Amaya, Jr., Joel Aguilera, Cuauhtemoc Alonso, Lavery Bowie, Ricardo Bastidas, Hector Cabrera, Maurice Campos, Michael Castaneda, Mario Celis, Johnny Chhem, Elvis Chinchilla, Carlos Contreras, Eric Craig, Joel De La Torre, Jorge Franco-Garcia, Pedro Garibay, Luis Hernandez, William Iraheta, Hector Jimenez, Robert Kagawa, Alejandro Medrano, Victor Morante, Rollo Mosqueda, Adrian Ornelas, Jose Rico, Serena M. Saenz, Manuel Silva, Erasmo Solis, Olga Solis, Vincent Thomas, Alex Torres, and Jose Vergara filed their Complaint against United Parcel Service, Inc., Mordea Pearson, Casey Thomas, James Rucker, Rangin Mohammadi, Josh Prajin, and Edward Crabb. The causes of action arise from Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendants.

On November 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint.

On May 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint.

On July 13, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint.

On August 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint.

On September 12, 2017, Defendants United Parcel Service, Inc., Rangin Mohammadi, Mordea Pearson, Josh Prajin, and James Rucker filed their Answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint.

On August 29, 2018, the Court found related cases BC617526 and BC676920. The Court did not relate cases CIVDS1617272 (San Bernardino Superior Court) and 56-2018-00510065-CU-OE-VTA (Ventura Superior Court).

On June 11, 2019, Defendant UPS Ground Freight, Inc. filed its Answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint.

On September 3, 2019, the Court granted summary adjudication as to the seventeenth cause of action (failure to pay all wages due in violation of various sections of the Labor Code) in favor of Defendant UPS Ground Freight, Inc. and against Plaintiffs.

From October 21 to October 29, 2019, the Court held a jury trial in this matter. Pursuant to the Order Re Trial Setting, signed January 11, 2019, and subsequent stipulations and orders, the Jury only heard claims by Plaintiffs Carlos Contreras and Victor Morante. Of the causes of action heard, the Jury only found in favor of Plaintiffs Carlos Contreras and Victor Morante on: (1) both Plaintiffs Carlos Contreras’ and Victor Morante’s cause of action for failure to allow meal and rest breaks pursuant to Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; and (2) only Plaintiff Victor Morante’s cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process. The Jury found $100,000.00 in damages for Plaintiff Victor Morante, which constituted $75,000.00 in economic damages and $25,000.00 in non-economic damages.

On October 5, 2020, by request of Plaintiffs, the Court corrected the name of Defendant UPS Ground Freight, Inc., erroneously sued as United Parcel Service, Inc.

On March 27, 2023, by request of Plaintiffs, the Clerk’s Office dismissed with prejudice from the Fourth Amended Complaint Plaintiffs Robert Amaya, Sr., Robert Amaya, Jr., Laneka Allen, Joel Aguilera, Cuauhtemoc Alonso, Lavery Bowie, Ricardo Bastidas, Noe Becerra, Maria Banuelos, Hector Cabrera, Maurice Campos, Michael Castaneda, Mario Celis, Elvis Chinchilla, Carlos Contreras, Eric Craig, Joel De La Torre, Jorge Franco-Garcia, Pedro Garibay, Luis Hernandez, William Iraheta, Hector Jimenez, Robert Kagawa, Alejandro Medrano, Victor Morante, Rollo Mosqueda, Jose Rico, Serena M. Saenz, Manuel Silva, Vincent Thomas, and Alex Torres.

On April 19, 2023, by Joint Stipulation of all remaining Parties (except Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas), the Court extended the deadline by which the claims of Plaintiffs Johnny Chhem, Erasmo Solis, Olga Solia, and Jose Vergara must be brought to trial to May 1, 2024.

On April 20, 2023, by request of Plaintiffs, the Clerk’s Office dismissed with prejudice from the Fourth Amended Complaint Plaintiff Erasmo Solis.

On August 1, 2023, Defendant TForce Freight, Inc. (formerly known as UPS Ground Freight, Inc.) filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas Based on Five-Year Rule (“Motion to Dismiss”). In support of its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant TForce Freight, Inc. concurrently filed: (1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Memorandum”); (2) Declaration of Ian A. Wright; and (3) Proposed Order.

No oppositions or other responses have been filed regarding the Motion to Dismiss.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

“An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.)

“In computing the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: (a) The jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended. (b) Prosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined. (c) Bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.340.)

“The parties may extend the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article by the following means: (a) By written stipulation. The stipulation need not be filed but, if it is not filed, the stipulation shall be brought to the attention of the court if relevant to a motion for dismissal. (b) By oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.330.)

“If the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article is tolled or otherwise extended pursuant to statute with the result that at the end of the period of tolling or extension less than six months remains within which the action must be brought to trial, the action shall not be dismissed pursuant to this article if the action is brought to trial within six months after the end of the period of tolling or extension.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.350.)

“An action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of the defendant, after notice to the parties, if the action is not brought to trial within the time prescribed in this article.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.360, subd. (a).)

“The requirements of this article are mandatory and are not subject to extension, excuse, or exception except as expressly provided by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.360, subd. (b).)

II.       Discussion

Defendant TForce Freight, Inc. moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas on the basis that this Plaintiff has not brought this matter to trial within five years after the action was commenced. (Memorandum, p. 12:20–22.)

Neither Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas nor any of the other remaining Parties have opposed or responded to the Motion to Dismiss.

The Court agrees with Defendant TForce Freight, Inc. that dismissal of Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas from this action is both appropriate and mandatory.

The Complaint in this case was filed on April 19, 2016. It is now September of 2023, more than seven years after this case was brought. Even accounting for various tolling, such as that due to the Emergency Rule issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears that the five-year period ended for Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas on May 18, 2023. (Memorandum, pp. 11–12.) While all of the remaining Plaintiffs and Defendant TForce Freight, Inc. have stipulated to an extension of the trial deadline in this matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.330, subdivision (a), Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas has not signed that stipulation (or orally agreed to it in open court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.330, subdivision (b)). This is despite Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas having notice of the stipulation since March 29, 2023. (Decl. Wright, ¶ 5.)

III.     Conclusion

The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff Adrian Ornelas is DISMISSED with prejudice from this matter.