Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2018-00040840-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2018-00040840-CU-MC-CTL BEAN VS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Dismiss, 02/16/2024

Defendant and Respondent The Regents of the University of California's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution is DENIED. All requests for judicial notice are granted.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, 'an action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.' If an action is not brought to trial in such time, the 'Action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or the motion of the defendant, after notice to the parties[.]' (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.360.) This time may be extended by written stipulation or 'oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.330.) Additionally, time shall be excluded 'during which any of the following conditions existed: (a) [t]he jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended; (b) [p]rosecution of the action was stayed or enjoined; [or] (c) [b]ringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile.' (Id., § 583.340.) The court finds that there has been no delay in Dr. Bean pursuing her case and that any delay was because (1) the lengthy administrative process that continued after the initial petition/complaint was filed; (2) Judge Sturgeon's structuring of the case. Both of these factors made bringing the damage portions of the case to trial 'impossible, impracticable, or futile' before the five-year statute. (Gaines v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1081, 1100 ['the court must consider all the circumstances in the individual case, including the acts and conduct of the parties and the nature of the proceedings themselves. The critical factor in applying these exceptions to a given factual situation is whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in prosecuting his or her case.'] [cleaned up].) Based on the extensive record the court finds that Dr. Bean and her counsel, Mr. Ottilie, have diligently pursued their case in this matter.

Additionally, the court agrees with Dr. Bean that there is no five-year statute issue because there has been a partial trial. (E.g., Sagi Plumbing v. Charted Constr. Corp. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 443, 449-450 [where 'an action has been bifurcated to try liability before damages . . . , the trial of the first phase would constitute commencement of trial for purposes of the 5-Year Statute because a finding on liability is a predicate to assessing damages.'].) While the mandamus claims are procedurally different, the hearings to decide those claims are treated like trials for the purposes of the general dismissal statute.

(See, e.g., Binyon v. State of California (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 952, 956, fn. 2.) Additionally, the court's rulings on those claims could have altered the assessment of Dr. Bean's damages to be raised in the third phase of the lawsuit. That the court's ruling on the mandamus actions could affect Dr. Bean's other claims was raised consistently during the parties' discussions with the court. Accordingly, the matter has Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092097  15 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BEAN VS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2018-00040840-CU-MC-CTL already been brought to trial for purposes of the statute.

The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092097  15