Judge Michael Small, Case Number: BC585918, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael Small, Case: BC585918, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: BC585918 Hearing Date: September 7, 2023 Dept: 57

Pending before the Court is the motion of Defendant Southwest Law Center (“SLC”) to dismiss this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 583.320(a)(1) based on the failure of Plaintiff Medical Acquisition Company (“MAC”) to bring the action to trial within three years after the Court declared a mistrial that ended a trial on MAC’s claims. The Court is granting SLC’s motion and dismissing the action.

Section 583.320(a)(1) provides that “[i]f a trial is commenced but no judgment is entered because of a mistrial [the action shall be brought to trial] within three years after the order of the court declaring the mistrial . . . is entered.” The Court (per Judge Steven Kleifield) entered a mistrial order on September 16, 2019. Three years after that date was September 16, 2022. The time to bring the case to trial following the mistrial order was extended by six months pursuant to the California Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 10(b), which was issued at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency Rule 10(b) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other law, including Code of Civil Procedure section 583.320, for all civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020 [,] the three years provided in section 583.320 in which the action must again be brought to trial is extended by six months for a total time of three years and six months.” Emergency Rule 10(b) thus extended the time for MAC to bring the action to trial to March 16, 2023. MAC did not bring the action to trial by March 16, 2023. Accordingly, SLC’s motion to dismiss must be granted.

MAC contends that the order of the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court suspending civil trials for a lengthy period due to the COVID-19 pandemic extended the time for MAC to bring the action to trial, on top of the COVID-19-based extension effectuated by Emergency Rule 10(b). According to MAC, the suspension order made it impossible for MAC to bring the case to trial until after the suspension order was lifted. To be sure, Section 583.340(c) excludes from the computation of the time to bring an action to trial under Section 583.320 any period during which it was impossible to bring the action to trial. The rub for MAC is that the trial was set on two different dates 2022, after the suspension order was lifted, but both times, MAC sought continuances of the trial dates. In other words, it was not impossible for MAC to have brought the case to trial before March 16, 2023 on account of the COVID-19-based suspension order. It was quite possible -- not once, but twice. MAC failed to avail itself of that possibility.

MAC also contends that three-year deadline for bringing the action to trial following the mistrial order was tolled on October 30, 2019 by virtue of MAC’s filing on that date of a notice of appeal from the Court’s September 3, 2019 order granting a summary judgment motion of two individual Defendants in this action. According to MAC, the filing of the appeal automatically stayed proceedings in this Court, and the stay remained in place until the remittitur from the Court of Appeal was issued on August 23, 2021. If MAC is correct, this means the deadline was tolled for a period of 663 days (from October 3, 2019 to August 23, 2021) and that the actual deadline to bring the case to trial was January 9, 2025 (which, based on MAC’s calculations, is 663 days beyond March 16, 2023.) MAC is not correct, however. Section 583.340(b) excludes from the computation of the time to bring an action to trial under Section 583.320 any period during which [p]rosecution of the action was stayed . . .” MAC’s October 30, 2019 notice of appeal from the order granting the summary judgment motion of the two individual Defendants did not automatically stay proceedings in this Court. MAC cites no authority to the contrary. MAC could have asked the Court to issue a discretionary stay of all proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal. It failed to make that request, however.

Finally, MAC contends that the action was automatically stayed upon MAC’s filing for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Act on January 13, 2022. According to MAC, it remains subject to the federal Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction as a Debtor-In-Possession and thus the automatic stay remains in place. MAC is wrong on this front as well. The Bankruptcy Act’s automatic stay provision applies to civil actions brought against a party who seeks protection of the Bankruptcy Act, not to civil actions brought by that party. (Shah v. Glendale Federal Bank (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1376.)

In sum, MAC failed to bring this action to trial within the deadline imposed by Section 583.320(a) and Emergency Rule 10(b). SLC’s motion to dismiss thus is granted. The Court directs counsel for SLC to prepare a proposed order memorializing the Court’s decision to grant SLC’s motion and to dismiss MAC’s action.