Brown v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 23 September 1976 |
| Citation | 62 Cal.App.3d 197,132 Cal.Rptr. 916 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Ross Adrian BROWN, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; Betty McELROY, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 49170. |
Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett, by Patrick A. Mesisca, Jr., Los Angeles, for petitioner.
No appearance by respondent.
Siegal, Ruch & Friedman, by Lawrence S. Ruch, Los Angeles, for real party in interest.
The trial court denied defendant's motion, made on June 29, 1976, to dismiss the action which had been filed on May 20, 1971, for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident occurring in September 1970. We issued an alternative writ ordering the Superior Court to show cause why defendant's motion should not be granted. We conclude that the motion should have been granted under the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 583(b), which requires dismissal of an action not brought to within five years.
Plaintiff McElroy was incarcerated in state prison from April 1971 to June 1974. After the filing of the action and during the period of McElroy's imprisonment, defendant Brown filed an answer, interrogatories were propounded by plaintiff, defendant's deposition was taken, and settlement negotiations were conducted. McElroy contends, however, that the motion to dismiss was properly denied because she could not bring the matter to trial for reasons beyond her control, i.e. her incarceration made it impossible for her to prosecute this action.
The record does not support McElroy's contention. It is apparent that her counsel prosecuted the matter during her imprisonment and prepared her case for trial, and that his preparation was not prejudiced by her incarceration. If anyone suffered prejudice it was Brown, whose counsel apparently could not take McElroy's deposition until her release from prison. 1
It is true, of course, that during her incarceration it may have been inadvisable as a tactical matter to proceed with the trial in her absence. We do not need to consider whether her unavailability would have rendered it 'impractical and futile' (Brunzell Constr. Co. v. Wagner (1970) 2 Cal.3d 545, 551, 86 Cal.Rptr. 297, 468 P.2d 553) to proceed with the trial, because in May 1974 she had written her counsel that she would be released on work furlough in June 1974 and thereafter would be available to appear at trial at any time. She was released in June...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seto v. Szeto
...cases such as State of California v. Superior Court , 98 Cal.App.3d 643, 159 Cal.Rptr. 650 (1979) , and Brown v. Superior Court , 62 Cal.App.3d 197, 132 Cal.Rptr. 916 (1976)." (Id. at p. 936.) The Law Revision Commission further explained that this approach was "consistent with the treatme......
-
Gaines v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co.
...cases such as State of California v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.App.3d 643, 159 Cal.Rptr. 650 (1979), and Brown v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.App.3d 197, 132 Cal.Rptr. 916 (1976)." (17 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep., supra, at p. 936.) Thus, a condition of impossibility, impracticability, or futility ......
-
Gaines v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co.
...cases such as State of California v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.App.3d 643, 159 Cal.Rptr. 650 (1979), and Brown v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.App.3d 197, 132 Cal.Rptr. 916 (1976)." (17 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep., supra, at p. 936.) Thus, a condition of impossibility, impracticability, or futility ......
-
Tamburina v. Combined Ins. Co. of America
...[but for] cause for the [failure to meet the five-year deadline]. The cases so holding were overruled [e.g., Brown v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 197, 132 Cal.Rptr. 916; State of California v. Superior Court (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 643, 159 650]." (New West, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p.......