Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 19STCV16639, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 19STCV16639    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion for Tolling and Extending the Five-Year Statute of Limitation filed by Plaintiffs.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs Angela Pope-Morgan, Asia Morgan, Alma Morgan, Kirk Morgan, and Sarah Morgan (“Plaintiffs”) were injured on May 12, 2017, in a collision with a motor vehicle driven by Defendant Leilei Chen on Interstate I-40 in New Mexico.  On May 13, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint against Defendants Leilei Chen and FBM Group Corporation (“Defendants”) and Does 1 through 25.  Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 13, 2019.  Defendants filed their Answer to the FAC on September 6, 2019.

After several trial continuances, the Court conducted a Final Status Conference on September 1, 2023, determined that the matter was long cause, and directed the parties to submit a Long Cause Trial Package to Department 1.  On September 20, Department 1 issued an order that stated that the parties were “not trial ready” and identified a number of deficiencies.

The parties resubmitted their long cause documents to Department 1 on or about October 20, 2023.  On November 8, 2023, Department 1 issued an order that stated that the parties were still “not trial ready” and identified a number of deficiencies.

On February 2, 2024, the parties filed a “Notice of Joint Submission for Long Cause Trial.”  It does not appear, however, that any documents were received by Department 1.

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion for an order “tolling and extending” the five-year requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.

No opposition has been filed.

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.)  Failure to proceed to trial requires dismissal by the court on its own motion or motion by any party.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.360.)

Dismissal is mandatory if the action is not brought to trial within five years and is not subject to extension, excuse, or exception, except as expressly provided by statue.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.360.)  The statutory exceptions include:  

(1)  Written stipulation.  (Code Civ. Proc., §583.330, subd. (a).)  

(2)  Oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.330, subd. (b).)  

(3) The jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended, or prosecution or trial of the action is stayed or enjoined.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.340, subds. (a), (b).)  

(4)  Bringing action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.340, subd. (c).)  

Additionally, Emergency Rule 10, subdivision (a), extends the time in which to bring a civil action to trial by six months, notwithstanding any other law.  (Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, Emergency rule 10.) 

If fewer than 6 months remain to bring the action to trial at the end of a statutory period of tolling or extension, the action may not be dismissed if it is brought to trial within 6 months after that period has ended.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.350; Him v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 35.)  However, the six-month grace period under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.350 does not apply in addition to the six-month extension of time to bring a civil action to trial provided by Emergency Rule 10, subdivision (a).  (Ables v. A. Ghazale Bros. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 823.) 

Discussion

Plaintiffs contend, in essence, that they have proceeded with diligence, that they opposed Defendants’ motion to continue the trial date from June 2023 to September 2023, that the delays since September 2023 have been as a result of the process for determination of long cause status, and that even after the case is determined to be a long cause matter there is likely to be a significant delay in starting trial.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request is, at this point, premature.  Department 1 has determined (twice) that the case is not yet ready for trial.  The five-year period (as extended by Emergency Rule 10) does not run until November 2024.  There is still plenty of time for the parties to complete their trial preparations and begin the trial. 

Plaintiffs are concerned that even once the parties are determined to be ready for trial, there may not be a courtroom available for some time.  That may occur.  Or it may not.  And if in the future that does occur, then Plaintiffs could well have a strong argument that the absence of an available courtroom constitutes circumstances under which it is “impossible” or “impracticable” to bring the action to trial within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340.  But at this point, this is a hypothetical question, depending on facts and circumstances that may or may not arise or occur in the future.  The issue is premature and not ripe for determination at this time.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.