[DOWNLOAD] "Howard V. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores" by Supreme Court Of California * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Howard V. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores
- Author : Supreme Court Of California
- Release Date : January 15, 1995
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 80 KB
Description
In this case, we revisit our decision in Moran v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal. 3d 229, 197 Cal. Rptr. 546, 673 P.2d 216 (Moran), to reconsider the relationship between the Judicial Arbitration Act (Code Civ. Proc.,*fn1 § 1141.10 et seq.) and the statute requiring that an action be dismissed if it has not been brought to trial five years after filing the complaint. ( § 583.310.)*fn2 In Moran we construed the meaning of section 1141.20, which requires trial courts to recalendar a case after arbitration "so that the trial shall be given the same place on the active list as it had prior to arbitration . . . ." In order to enforce this statutory mandate, we held that after a trial de novo is requested following the filing of an arbitration award "the time between the date the arbitration award is filed with the court and the date set for the new trial is to be excluded from calculation of the five-year period of section 583 (b) [now section 583.310]." (Moran, supra, 35 Cal. 3d at p. 242.) As will appear, we conclude that our holding in Moran must be read in the manner now apparently agreed upon by the Courts of Appeal: the five-year statute will be tolled in the post-arbitration period only if a plaintiff timely notifies the trial court of the date that statute is due to expire and requests that the trial be scheduled before that date. Plaintiff did not exhibit such minimal diligence in this case, and hence cannot benefit from the tolling provisions implicit in section 1141.20. We also find, however, that the trial court in this case erred in calculating the expiration of the five-year period and therefore erroneously dismissed the case on mandatory grounds.