Prevailing Party: Party Obtaining Dismissal For Other Side’s Violation Of Five-Year-to-Trial Rule Does Prevail Under Civil Code Section 1717 For Fee Recovery Purposes

 

Decision Is Also a Cautionary Tale on Stipulations to Extend the Five Years To Another Date Certain.

     The Third District in City of Stockton v. Central San Joaquin Water Conservation Dist., Case No. C063824 (3d Dist. Jan. 11, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where litigants stipulated to an extension of the five-year-to-trial limit (CCP § 583.310) from the limitation date to another date certain. However, that new date went by without a trial, although a lower court denied a defense dismissal motion that was subsequently reversed by the same appellate court through an alternative writ proceeding. The lower court then dismissed the case and awarded defendant $186,834 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 (apparently based on a fees clauses in some underlying agreements).

Water supply. Migratory camp for cotton pickers. San Joaquin Valley, California. American River camp

     Above:  Water supply.  Migratory camp for cotton pickers.  San Joaquin Valley.  November 1936.  Dorothea Lange, photographer.  Library of Congress.

     The appellate court affirmed both the dismissal and the fee award.

     Citing other cases, the appellate court found that defendant did prevail in obtaining dismissal based on the five-year time limit. (Elms v. Builder Disbursements, Inc. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 671, 674-675 (1991); Winick Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 187 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1508 (1986).) Because plaintiffs had filed a new lawsuit based on the same claims, they argued that defendant had not prevailed in a “practical” sense; however, plaintiffs’ lack of authority to support this argument doomed it–with the appellate court finding that the defendant certainly obtained greater relief so as to be entitled to fee recovery.

     The other message from this decision is important to the bar at large. If you stipulate to extend the five-year time limit to another date certain, you are bound by the stipulation to the agreed-upon date. The opinion informs us that you will not get the benefit of various tolling or other extension periods mentioned in the five-year limit statutory regime. Be careful what you agree to in this area and make sure the case gets to trial on time (e.g., at least swear one witness or get a new extension in writing/on the record).

Scroll to Top