Judge: Michael Small, Case: BC696016, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

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

Case Number: BC696016    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: 57

On March 1, 2018, Plaintiff Hoang Nguyen sued his former employer Defendant City of Los Angeles and former supervisors Defendants Sam Pallares and David Gumaer.  Trial in this action is set for January 27, 2025.  Nguyen has moved to advance the trial date from January 27, 2025 to July 15, 2024.  Nguyen argues that there is good cause to advance the trial date because the statutory time for bringing the case to trial -- five  years from the initiation of the case -- will have expired by January 27, 2025 thus requiring dismissal of the case before the trial gets under way.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.310, 583.340.)  According to Nguyen’s calculation, the five-year deadline to bring the case to trial is mid-November 2024.  (Nguyen requests that the trial be set for July 15, 2024 because he has a trial in October 2024 that will bump up against the asserted mid-November 2024 deadline.) 

The Court is denying the motion because Nguyen has significantly miscalculated the date by which the case must be brought trial to avoid dismissal.   As a result, there is not good cause to advance the trial date. 

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 583.310, an action must be brought to trial within five years after it is commenced against the defendant(s). (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.) Otherwise, dismissal of the action is mandatory on the  motion of any party or on the court’s own motion. (Id., § 583.360.)  

In computing the time within which an action must be brought to trial, the following conditions toll the five-year period: (a) the court’s jurisdiction to try the action was suspended; (b) prosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined or (c) bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was “impossible, impracticable, or futile.” (Id., § 583.340.)  Tolling under subsection (b) applies here because the case was stayed pending Nguyen’s appeal from the Court’s order (per Judge Steven Kleifield) granting Defendant Gumaer’s motion for summary judgment on Nguyen’s claims against him.  The period of the stay was 641 days, from April 11, 2022 until January 22, 2024. 

The time for bringing the case to trial was further tolled by virtue of the California Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule 10(a), which was promulgated at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Emergency Rule 10(a) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other law, including  Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, for all civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020, the time in which to bring the action to trial is extended by six months for a total time of five years and six months."  Emergency Rule 10(a) applies here because Nguyen filed this action prior to April 6, 2020.  Thus, the time Nguyen has to bring the case to trial is tolled for an additional 180 days.

Absent tolling, the deadline for Nguyen to bring the case to trial has come and gone: that date was March 1, 2023, which was five years from the March 1, 2018 date the action was filed.  But when the tolling for the 641-day period during which the case was stayed pending appeal is taken into account, the time for bringing the case to trial is December 2, 2024.  (641 days from March 1, 2023 is December 1, 2024, which is a Sunday; the next Court day thereafter is Monday December 2, 2024.)  And when the tolling for the 180-day period afforded by Emergency Rule 10(a) is added to the  mix, the time for bringing the case to trial is June 1, 2025.  (180 days from December 2, 2024 is May 30, 2025, which is a Saturday; Monday June 2, 2025 is the next Court day thereafter.)

The current trial date of January 27, 2025 is more than four months before Nguyen’s June 1, 2025 deadline for bringing the case to trial under Section 583.310.  Accordingly, Nguyen’s motion does not set forth good cause to advance the trial date.