Karubian v. Security Pacific National Bank
1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 1654, 152 Cal. App. 3d 134, 199 Cal. Rptr. 295 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'impossibility, impracticability, or futility' exception to the mandatory five-year dismissal rule for failure to bring a case to trial does not apply when a plaintiff, despite a clerk's administrative error, fails to exercise reasonable diligence in monitoring the case's status and takes no action until shortly before the five-year period expires.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint for negligent damage to real property on September 24, 1975.
- Plaintiffs' initial counsel filed an 'at-issue memorandum' on December 31, 1976.
- Plaintiffs substituted counsel twice in early 1977, with a new law firm on February 18, 1977, and another attorney on March 2, 1977.
- On April 26, 1979, and again on June 25, 1979, the clerk issued 'notice[s] of eligibility' to file a certificate of readiness, but mailed both notices to Plaintiffs' initial attorney of record.
- The initial attorney allegedly called the clerk's office to state he was no longer counsel but did not forward the notices to Plaintiffs or their current counsel.
- No certificate of readiness was filed, causing the case to be removed from the 'civil active list,' a status Plaintiffs' current attorney remained unaware of.
- Plaintiffs' current counsel did not take any action to monitor the case or inquire about its status after the notices were misdirected in June 1979.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint for negligent damage to real property in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (trial court).
- The clerk's office misdirected notices of eligibility to file a certificate of readiness, leading to the case being removed from the civil active list.
- Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to specially set the matter for trial just 40 days before the mandatory five-year dismissal period expired.
- The Los Angeles County Superior Court (trial court) denied Plaintiffs' motion to specially set, finding substantial prejudice to defendants and that the matter was not at issue.
- The Los Angeles County Superior Court (trial court) subsequently denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.
- A judgment of dismissal was entered by the Los Angeles County Superior Court (trial court) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b) for failure to bring the matter to trial within five years.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the judgment of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by dismissing an action for failure to bring it to trial within five years, even if a clerk failed to properly notify the plaintiff's current counsel of eligibility to file a certificate of readiness, if the plaintiff's counsel did not exercise reasonable diligence in monitoring the case's status?
Opinions:
Majority - Compton, J.
No, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing an action for failure to bring it to trial within five years, even when a clerk's error misdirects a crucial notice, if the plaintiff's counsel fails to exercise reasonable diligence in monitoring the case's status. The court acknowledged the mandatory five-year dismissal requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b), and its exceptions for 'impossibility, impracticability, or futility,' but emphasized that a plaintiff's reasonable diligence serves as the guideline for assessing these exceptions. While the Supreme Court's decision in Moran v. Superior Court established that a diligent plaintiff could rely on official duties being performed, that case did not address situations where such reliance persists after a significant amount of time indicates a failure in official duty. The court reasoned that there comes a point where a plaintiff can no longer be considered diligent without taking some action to call attention to a lack of progress. In this case, Plaintiffs' counsel's ignorance of the case's inactive status, though resulting from a misdirected notice, did not constitute 'impossibility' or 'futility' because filing a certificate of readiness or a new at-issue memorandum could have kept the case moving. It was not 'impracticable' for counsel to monitor the case; an attorney should recognize the need for action if eligibility notices are not received by the fourth or four-and-a-half-year mark. Plaintiffs' counsel waited until only 40 days before the deadline before acting. The court found that a simple inquiry (phone call, letter, or visit) to the clerk's office after June 1979 would have revealed the case's status. Therefore, requiring plaintiffs and their counsel to monitor their cases for clerk errors in a reasonably prompt fashion is neither unreasonable nor impracticable. The trial court's denial of the motion to specially set, considering the entire factual picture including prejudice to defendants and the case's not being 'at issue,' was a proper exercise of discretion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of the 'impossibility, impracticability, or futility' exception to California's mandatory five-year dismissal statute, particularly in situations involving administrative error. It places a heightened burden on plaintiffs' counsel to proactively monitor the status of their cases, even when a court clerk makes an initial mistake. The decision limits the extent to which a plaintiff can passively rely on the performance of official duties, emphasizing that 'reasonable diligence' requires active engagement and follow-up, especially as critical deadlines approach. This ruling reinforces attorney responsibility in case management and likely reduces the success rate of appeals based solely on court administrative errors if counsel has not demonstrated sufficient oversight.
