Membrila v. Vonett Sales Co.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 30350,30350 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Carmen P. MEMBRILA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. VONETT SALES COMPANY, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Berris & Niles, Robert S. Mendelsohn, Elliot D. Burick, Beverly Hills, for plaintiff and appellant.
Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Robert W. Rodolf, Henry R. Walker, Los Angeles, for respondent Vonett Sales Co.
McBain & Morgan and James L. Roper, Elmer Docken, Los Angeles, for respondent Clairol, Inc.
Gordon B. Severance, Monterey Park, for respondent Garcia.
The complaint in this action was filed February 21, 1962. An amended complaint was filed June 1, 1962, followed on January 17, 1963 by an amendment to the complaint. Over two years later more than three years after the action was commenced defendant Vonett Sales Company filed a notice of motion to dismiss for failure to bring the case to trial. It was opposed partly on the plea that to grant it would deprive plaintiff of her day in court. The motion was granted.
On August 6, 1965, a notice of its motion to dismiss was filed by defendant Clairol, Inc. and a like notice was filed by defendant Salvador Garcia. Thereupon plaintiff gave notice that she would seek a reconsideration of the motion that was already granted. In support of her opposition position to the new motions to dismiss, and of her motion to reconsider, she filed a declaration 'in answer to the allegations that the file has lain dormant.' It listed some eighteen events since March 21, 1962, the inaccurate date given for commencing the action, including several actions taken by the defendants and concluding the schedule of events with this one:
On August 19, 1965, plaintiff's motion for an order granting a reconsideration of the order dismissing the action as to defendant Vonett Sales Company, was denied, and two orders were made granting the motions of defendants Clairol, Inc. and Salvador Garcia, to dismiss. In connection with his ruling the trial judge filed a memorandum in which he declined to reconsider the order of dismissal already made and which concluded with this sentence, respecting the motions by the other two defendants: 'The court finds that as to these defendants plaintiff has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monroy v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
...in bringing a case to trial rests on plaintiff. (Breckenridge v. Mason, 259 Cal.App.2d 121, 64 Cal.Rptr. 201; Membrila v. Vonett Sales Co., 250 Cal.App.2d 299, 58 Cal.Rptr. 544.) Even if plaintiff's delay up to the time of defendant's last discovery proceeding, 31 October 1966, were excusab......
-
Price v. Grayson
...to five, the showing required to justify a failure to bring a case to trial grows greater and greater.' (Membrila v. Vonett Sales Co., 250 Cal.App.2d 299, 300, 58 Cal.Rptr. 544.) Appellant has failed to sustain his burden and has demonstrated no abuse of discretion, and we find none in the ......
-
Rathbun v. Superior Court
...a dismissal within the discretion of the trial court if it is not brought to trial within two years. (Membrila v. Vonett Sales Co., 250 Cal.App.2d 299, 300, 58 Cal.Rptr. 544.) The statute places no restrictions on the exercise of the trial court's discretion, and there is no requirement tha......
-
City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
...and that the delays were excusable. (Black Bros. Co. v. Superior Court, 265 A.C.A. 548, 71 Cal.Rptr. 344; Membrila v. Vonett Sales Co., 250 Cal.App.2d 299, 58 Cal.Rptr. 544; Bonelli v. Chandler, 165 Cal.App.2d 267, 331 P.2d Since there was no evidence presented to the trial judge to excuse ......