Court Opinion

ID: 9718622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:28:12.397646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:00.782361
License: Public Domain

JEFFERSON (Bernard), J.
I both concur and dissent.
I agree with the majority’s result in reversing the trial court’s order of dismissal of the action with respect to the defendant Gleneagle Develop*565ment Co. on the simple ground that the record establishes, without question, that the order of dismissal, made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (a), constitutes an abuse of discretion and a miscarriage of justice. I fully realize that it is stated in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [86 Cal.Rptr. 65, 486 P.2d 193] that “[t]he exercise of the trial court’s discretion will be disturbed only for clear abuse . . .” and that Martindale v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 568, 574 [86 Cal.Rptr. 71, 468 P.2d 199], states “that the trial court’s discretion will not be disturbed unless it appears that there has been a miscarriage of justice.”
In my opinion, however, the record below demonstrates just as forcefully that the trial court’s order of dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion and a miscarriage of justice with respect to the plaintiff’s rights against defendant Security Insurance Company of Hartford. I see no basis in the record for the distinction which the majority makes between the two defendants. I consider that plaintiff, as against defendant Security, is entitled to the benefit of the policy set forth in Denham that “[although a defendant is entitled to the weight of the policy underlying the dismissal statute, which seeks to prevent unreasonable delays in litigation, the policy is less powerful than that which seeks to dispose of litigation on the merits rather than on procedural grounds. [Citation.]” (Denham, supra, 2 Cal.3d 557, at p. 566.)
Therefore, I would reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal with respect to both defendants.
A petition for a rehearing was denied October 14, 1976, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 24, 1976.