In California, a litigant is faced with numerous deadlines when prosecuting their case. For example, a litigant is required to file their claim within a certain time period depending upon the cause of action they allege in their lawsuit. If a litigant files a lawsuit for breach of a written contract, they have 4 years from the date of breach to file the lawsuit. Code of Civil Procedure §337. Additionally, if a litigant has been served with Requests for Admission, a form of written discovery, a litigant generally has at least 30 days to provide written responses. Code of Civil Procedure §§2033.010 - 2033.420. If a trial date has been scheduled, a litigant is required to complete discovery on or before the 30th day before trial. Code of Civil Procedure §2024.020. Suffice to say, the foregoing is not an exhaustive list of all statutory deadlines.
One deadline that is seldom enforced is the requirement that an “action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” Code of Civil Procedure §583.310. Failure to bring a case to trial within 5 years can result in the case’s dismissal.
One recent unpublished appellate decision addressed the notice requirement needed to dismiss a case because of the failure to prosecute an action within the 5-year time period.
“This probate litigation arises out of a dispute between siblings Alana H. Dong and Raymond T. Dong over control of a revocable trust created by their parents. In July 2015, Alana petitioned for an order seeking, among other things, removal of Raymond as co-trustee. Raymond filed a competing petition; thereafter, he and his wife responded to Alana's petition. In February 2016, the trial court vacated the trial date pursuant to the parties' stipulation.
Then nothing happened in the case until late September 2022, when the trial court — on its own motion — dismissed Alana's petition for "[f]ailure to [p]rosecute." No parties attended the unreported hearing. The register of actions indicates the "entire action" was dismissed without prejudice.”
“Notice is required before a trial court dismisses an action under these statutes. (In re Marriage of Straczynski (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 531, 538; Cordova v. Vons Grocery Co. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1526, 1531.) Section 583.360, for example, mandates dismissal "by the court on its own motion . . . after notice to the parties." (§ 583.360, subd. (a), italics added.)”
“No such notice was provided here. Reversal is therefore required because the dismissal order "did not comport with" the statutory scheme, the Rules of Court, or due process. (Cohen v. Hughes Markets, Inc., supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1699; Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1193 [dismissal order void where "plaintiffs were not given notice that their case would be dismissed if they failed to appear for the status conference"].)”
Dong v. Dong et al., Alameda County Superior Court case no. RP15777439
