Court Opinion

ID: 9726632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:00:59.872036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:29.304794
License: Public Domain

ALLPORT, J.
I dissent. Once again the undersigned is asked to subscribe, under compulsion of General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 449 [124 Cal.Rptr. 745, 541 P.2d 289], to an opinion conceded by the majority to give rise to not only a bad result but to do violence to fundamental legal principles. In my opinion General Ins. Co. should not and need not be extended under the facts of the instant case to compel an obvious injustice.
The rationale of General Ins. Co. appears to be that a written agreement indefinitely extending the time for which defendant was obligated to file responsive pleadings excused during its existence any lack of diligence on the part of plaintiff. In each case the primary benefit of the agreement flowed to the defendant. In the case at bar, every substantial extension of time for a party to perform some function of going ahead with the litigation was made to accommodate plaintiffs. The record is replete with instances where defendants attempted to move along the litigation but were frustrated by plaintiffs’ requests for delays. For this reason I believe General Ins. Co. is factually distinguishable and should not be deemed to control our decision in the case at bench.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 20, 1979, and respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 29, 1979.