Netzley v. Hillstrom
| Decision Date | 04 January 1954 |
| Citation | 265 P.2d 57,122 Cal.App.2d 417 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | NETZLEY et al. v. HILLSTROM et al. Civ. 4727. |
William G. Bergman, Jr., Claremont, for appellants.
Swing & Gillespie, San Bernardino, for respondents.
The complaint in this malpractice action was filed on January 26, 1948. On November 20, 1952, defendants E. N. Hillstrom and C. A. Herrmann filed and served a notice of motion to dismiss the action on the ground that there had been an inexcusable delay of more than two years after the filing of said action in prosecuting the same. This motion was granted on December 5, 1952, and a judgment of dismissal was thereupon entered. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and the principal question involved is whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the action.
It appears from the affidavit of counsel for defendants, filed in support of the motion, that this is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the wrongful acts of defendants arising out of and in the course of medical care and treatment and in the performance of a surgical operation upon the plaintiff Lois Gwendolyn Netzley; that the wrongful acts are alleged to have occurred between the 26th day of September, 1946 and the 20th day of April, 1947; that the complaint was filed on January 26, 1948; that a first amended and supplemental complaint was filed on May 7, 1948, a second amended and supplemental complaint was filed on June 19, 1948, a third amended complaint on July 28, 1948, a fourth amended complaint on October 15, 1948, and a fifth amended complaint on April 1, 1948; that on April 7, 1949, defendants demurred to the fifth amended complaint; that said demurrer was never brought on for hearing and no proceedings of any kind were had in said action from that date until February 29, 1952, when plaintiffs were granted permission to file a sixth amended complaint, to which defendants demurred and said demurrer was overruled; that on April 24, 1952, defendants filed their answer and said action became at issue, nearly four years and four months after the complaint was filed; that on or about October 6, 1952, defendants filed a notice for security for costs and an undertaking was thereafter filed and served upon defendants on or about November 3, 1952; that on November 10, 1952, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an order advancing said case for trial upon the stated ground that the five-year period within which said action must be brought to trial would expire on or about January 24, 1953; that said motion has not yet been heard, ruled upon or otherwise disposed of; that defendants stated to affiant the facts and circumstances of the case and that affiant believes that defendants have a good and valid defense to said cause of action upon the merits; that at all times since the filing of said action the defendants have been ready and willing to try it; that plaintiffs' delay in bringing said cause to trial is wholly inexcusable and is not caused by any acts or omissions of the defendants; that since said action was filed memories of witnesses have become dim with the passage of time, witnesses have disappeared and defendant E. N. Hillstrom has moved from the state of California and evidence has been lost which, had said action been prosecuted to trial with reasonable diligence, would have been available to said defendants, and without which defendants will be prejudiced and placed under an undue hardship if said action is now permitted to proceed to trial after such long and inexcusable delay in the prosecution thereof.
In opposition to the motion and in answer to the affidavit of counsel for defendants, counsel for plaintiffs filed a counter affidavit in which he stated that on or about March 1, 1949, he forwarded to the plaintiffs at their last address known to affiant at Dayton, Ohio, a copy of the fifth amended complaint with a request that they verify the same and return it to him; that on March 30th, not having received said complaint so verified, affiant verified and filed a fifth amended complaint; that he did not again hear from the plaintiffs and learned that they had not received said complaint until some time between the first and fifth days of February, 1952, at which time plaintiffs came to California and advised affiant that they had never heard from him and had written two letters to him regarding this case, neither of which was ever received by affiant; that thereupon affiant prepared and filed a sixth amended complaint to which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diverco Constructors, Inc. v. Wilstein
...183, 188, 52 Cal.Rptr. 875 (1966); McKenzie v. Albaeck, 219 Cal.App.2d 97, 99, 32 Cal.Rptr. 762 (1963); Netzley v. Hillstrom, 122 Cal.App.2d 417, 420, 265 P.2d 57 (1954). In Carnation Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d 891, 895, 82 Cal.Rptr. 98, 101 (1969), the court stated the foll......
-
Bonelli v. Chandler
...the duty falling on every person who files an action to prosecute it with reasonable promptness and diligence. Netzley v. Hillstrom, 122 Cal.App.2d 417, 265 P.2d 57. The defendants' motion was submitted by way of affidavits and the official record of the proceedings in the lower court. In c......
- State v. Ramirez
-
Sprajc v. Scandinavian Airlines System, Inc.
...his right to move for dismissal under section 583 by answering the complaint promptly upon service of process. (Netzley v. Hillstrom, 122 Cal.App.2d 417, 421, 265 P.2d 57.) The judgment is HERNDON and FLEMING, JJ., concur. 1 Apparently all parties agree that the case is governed by the prov......