Opinion ID: 1265458
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Applicability of the Moran Case

Text: Plaintiff first contends, relying on our opinion in Moran, supra, 35 Cal.3d 229, that the five-year limitation period prescribed by section 583.310 is automatically tolled between the date a trial de novo is requested under section 1141.20, and the date set for the new trial. None of the time elapsed between defendant's request for a trial de novo and plaintiff's motion to specially set, she argues, should have been counted when calculating the five-year period. Therefore, she claims, she was entitled under Moran to a timely trial date, and the trial court erred as to both its mandatory and discretionary dismissal of the case. In order to assess the merits of plaintiff's position, we must discuss at some length the meaning of the Moran case in light of subsequent legislative developments as well as judicial interpretations. In Moran, with only forty-one days left before the expiration of the five-year statute, and with the trial set for approximately one month before the expiration date, the trial court ordered the case into arbitration pursuant to section 1141.11. When the plaintiff's attorneys warned of the impending five-year statute, the trial court assured them that the case would be restored to the trial calendar should any party request a trial de novo. After an arbitrator's award to the plaintiff, the defendant requested a trial de novo 24 days before the expiration of the 5-year period. The plaintiff promptly notified the court of the imminent five-year deadline and the need to recalendar the case for trial. But despite assurances from court personnel, the case was misfiled and sent to storage. Eventually, 129 days after the supposed expiration of the 5-year statute, defendant moved for dismissal under section 583, subdivision (b), the predecessor to the current section 583.310. ( Moran, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 236.) Although the defendant's motion was denied in the trial court, he was granted writ relief in the Court of Appeal. We reversed the Court of Appeal, finding for two independent reasons that the statute had not expired. First we recognized an implied exception to the five-year statute when, despite a plaintiff's reasonable diligence, prosecution of the action within five years proves to be impossible, impracticable, or futile  an exception that has since been codified in section 583.340, subdivision (c). Reviewing the complete record of the plaintiff's actions over the five-year period, we found her to have been reasonably diligent, and therefore within the impossible, impracticable, or futile exception. ( Moran, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 238-240.) Second, we concluded in part III of that opinion that the time between the date a postarbitration trial de novo is requested and the date on which the new trial is set should in any case be excluded from the five-year period. We based this conclusion on a construction of section 1141.20, which permitted a party to request a trial de novo within 20 days (now 30 days) after the filing of an arbitration award, and which also provided (and currently provides) that: Any party may elect to have a de novo trial, by court or jury, both as to law and facts. Such trial shall be calendared, insofar as possible, so that the trial shall be given the same place on the active list as it had prior to arbitration, or shall receive civil priority on the next setting calendar. As we stated: Once [a request for a trial de novo] has been made, this section requires that a case be calendared for trial in the order of priority it held before arbitration. Since the trial court alone has the power to order a matter placed upon its trial calendar, section 1141.20 imposes a duty upon the court sua sponte to recalendar the trial in `the same place ... it had prior to arbitration.' In compliance with this statutory mandate, and in order to ensure that the plaintiff will retain the benefit of the amount of time remaining in the five-year period when the case went into arbitration, that period will remain tolled until the new trial date set by the court. ( Moran, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 240-241, italics in original, fn. omitted.) It is this second automatic tolling prong of Moran that plaintiff relies on in arguing that the five-year statute was tolled from the date defendant requested a trial de novo, and that therefore the trial court erred in dismissing the case. Our Courts of Appeal, particularly those in the Second District, have had numerous occasions to interpret Moran and in particular its second prong. Initially, a schism within these courts arose, with some courts appearing to hold that the postarbitration tolling occurred whether or not plaintiff acted diligently in reminding the court to timely calendar the case. (See Barna v. Passage 350 Canon (1986) 186 Cal. App.3d 440, 447-448 [230 Cal. Rptr. 764]; Hughes v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 173 Cal. App.3d 512, 517-518 [219 Cal. Rptr. 82]; Paul E. Iacono Structural Engineer, Inc. v. Rizzo (1984) 162 Cal. App.3d 803 [208 Cal. Rptr. 787]; Ward v. Levin (1984) 161 Cal. App.3d 1026, 1033 [208 Cal. Rptr. 312].) Other courts held that plaintiffs were required to be diligent, specifically that a plaintiff [must] notify the trial court of the correct five-year limit once a trial de novo has been requested, in order to benefit from the tolling period discussed in Moran. ( Santa Monica Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal. App.3d 1026, 1034 [250 Cal. Rptr. 384]; see also Messih v. Levine (1991) 228 Cal. App.3d 454, 458 [278 Cal. Rptr. 825]; Marchuk v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (1990) 226 Cal. App.3d 1273, 1277 [276 Cal. Rptr. 627]; Dresser v. Bindi (1990) 221 Cal. App.3d 1493, 1498 [271 Cal. Rptr. 137]; Serrano v. FMC Corp. (1990) 221 Cal. App.3d 1027, 1031-1032 [271 Cal. Rptr. 41]; Baccus v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App.3d 1526, 1536 [255 Cal. Rptr. 781]; Berry v. Weitzman (1988) 203 Cal. App.3d 351, 356-357 [249 Cal. Rptr. 816]; Sizemore v. Tri-City Lincoln Mercury (1987) 190 Cal. App.3d 84, 91-92 [235 Cal. Rptr. 343]; Hill v. Bingham (1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 1, 11-12 [225 Cal. Rptr. 905]; Cannon v. City of Novato (1985) 167 Cal. App.3d 216, 222 [213 Cal. Rptr. 132].) Apparently, this latter view has prevailed and is now unanimously held in the Courts of Appeal by all divisions that have considered the issue. (See Messih v. Levine, supra, 228 Cal. App.3d 454, 458; Marchuk v. Ralphs Grocery Co., supra, 226 Cal. App.3d 1273, 1278.) (1) We agree with these Courts of Appeal that some initial, reasonable diligence on plaintiffs' part is required to benefit from section 1141.20's implied tolling provisions. This construction of section 1141.20 is dictated in part by another arbitration statute, section 1141.17. That section, which was strengthened and clarified by amendments going into effect after the Moran decision was filed (see Dresser v. Bindi, supra, 221 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1498-1500), now reads: (a) Submission of an action to arbitration pursuant to this chapter shall not suspend the running [of the five-year statute], except as provided in this section. [¶] (b) If an action is or remains submitted to arbitration pursuant to this chapter more than four years and six months after the plaintiff has filed the action, the time beginning on the date four years and six months after the plaintiff has filed the action and ending on the date on which a request for a trial de novo is filed under Section 1141.20 shall not be included in computing the five-year period specified in Section 583.310. Whatever may have been the original viability of Moran 's automatic tolling holding, the amended section 1141.17 leaves little doubt that such a holding is now untenable. Submission of an action to arbitration will result in the tolling of the five-year mandatory dismissal statute only under the terms of section 1141.17. That is, the five-year statute will only stop running for arbitrations beginning or continuing into the last six months of the five-year period, and then only from the four-year six-month date after filing the action until the date a trial de novo is requested. This tolling scheme is directly contrary to the one set forth in Moran, in which tolling continues past the date of the trial de novo request and does not cease until the date set for the new trial. Moreover, we also agree with the Court of Appeal's criticism of the automatic tolling language of the Moran decision as contrary to the long-settled principle that it is a plaintiff's duty, rather than the trial court's, to keep track of critical dates. (See Cannon v. City of Novato, supra, 167 Cal. App.3d 216, 222.) As the Cannon court declared: `The burden is upon the plaintiff to call to the attention of the court the necessity for setting the trial for a time within the period fixed by [section 583].' ( Cannon, supra, 167 Cal. App.3d at p. 222, quoting Steinbauer v. Bondesen (1932) 125 Cal. App. 419, 426 [14 P.2d 106].) This rule is well founded: the burden of keeping track of the relevant dates should properly fall on plaintiffs, because it is they who have the interest, and the statutory duty under section 583.310, to timely prosecute their cases. Section 1141.20 cannot be construed to relieve plaintiffs of this burden. The evident purpose of section 1141.20 is to prevent plaintiffs from being penalized for having undergone the arbitration process; it accomplishes this purpose by returning plaintiffs to their pre-arbitration position on the trial calendar. Section 1141.17, however, restricts the amount of time that can be tolled automatically as the result of submitting an action to arbitration. To reconcile these statutes, we endorse the narrow reading of Moran adopted by the Courts of Appeal, as cited above: an action is automatically tolled as the result of submission to arbitration only if it falls within the terms set forth in section 1141.17  that is, only within the last six months of the five-year period, and only until a trial de novo is requested. The trial court, however, still has the duty to calendar or recalendar the case for trial under section 1141.20. But it is the plaintiff's task, rather than that of the court, to keep track of pertinent dates, and to inform the court of these. Once a plaintiff has informed the court, during or shortly after a trial de novo request, of the five-year trial date, the court then has the duty to schedule the case insofar as possible, so that the trial shall be given the same place on the active list as it had prior to arbitration, or to receive civil priority. (§ 1141.20.) Thus, if prior to arbitration a plaintiff is eligible to receive a trial date within the five-year statute, as was the case in Moran, then the plaintiff is entitled to receive such a trial date upon a timely postarbitration request. If the trial court fails to correctly calendar or recalendar the case after having been properly notified, only then will the action be tolled pursuant to section 1141.20 from the date of the trial de novo request until the date of the new trial. This tolling will result not from submission to arbitration under section 1141.17, but from the court's failure in the postarbitration period to fulfill its duty under section 1141.20. (2) Of course, a plaintiff who benefits from such tolling of the five-year statute pursuant to section 1141.20 may still be subject to a discretionary dismissal, if the plaintiff would have been subject to such dismissal before arbitration. (See Sisler v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal. App.3d 864, 868-869 [252 Cal. Rptr. 665].) Although section 1141.20 seeks to ensure that a diligent plaintiff will obtain his or her pre-arbitration place in the calendar, it does not guarantee a trial date within the five-year period if a dilatory plaintiff would not have been eligible for a timely trial date prior to entering arbitration. In the present case, plaintiff did not inform the trial court of the impending five-year deadline, or make any effort to have a trial date set immediately following defendant's request for a trial de novo. Hence, the five-year statute continued to run between the time the trial request was made and the time some six months later when plaintiff made a motion to specially set the case for trial. Plaintiff attempts to distinguish the present case from the Courts of Appeal cases cited above on two grounds. First, as plaintiff correctly points out, in most of those cases, it was the plaintiff who requested a trial de novo. (See, e.g., Messih v. Levine, supra, 228 Cal. App.3d 454, 456; Marchuk v. Ralphs Grocery Co., supra, 226 Cal. App.3d 1273, 1275-1276; Dresser v. Bindi, supra, 221 Cal. App.3d 1493, 1495; Serrano v. FMC Corp., supra, 221 Cal. App.3d 1027, 1029.) In this case, as in Moran, the defendant made the request. But this distinction is not significant. A defendant's request for a trial de novo under section 1141.20, subdivision (a), in no way shifts the burden of timely advancing the litigation from plaintiff to defendant, and it still remains the plaintiff's responsibility to keep track of critical dates. Second, plaintiff contends many of the Court of Appeal cases cited above have been those in which the court erroneously calendared the case for trial after the five-year period had elapsed; the plaintiff in those cases was either responsible for that error or failed to bring the error to the court's attention. (See, e.g., Taylor v. Hayes (1988) 199 Cal. App.3d 1407, 1490 [245 Cal. Rptr. 613]; Sizemore v. Tri-City Lincoln Mercury, supra, 190 Cal. App.3d 84, 87; Hill v. Bingham, supra, 181 Cal. App.3d 1, 5.) In this case, the trial court failed to recalendar the case altogether. But this, too, is a distinction without a difference. A plaintiff, as we have said, has the duty to request a timely trial date. That duty remains in force whether or not the court has fulfilled its own sua sponte duty to recalendar the case. Plaintiff's failure to perform that duty leaves the five-year statute running. We therefore conclude that the present action was not tolled between the time of defendant's trial de novo request and plaintiff's motion to specially set. Whether the trial court was obliged, under section 1141.20, to grant plaintiff's motion to specially set is a separate question, which we address in part IV of this opinion. [3]