Court Opinion

ID: 9725005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:24:36.230521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:08.877973
License: Public Domain

FRANSON, J.
I concur in the result. However, I would qualify the mandatory nature of the procedure provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 597.5 by requiring that the motion to separately try the issues raised by the statute of limitations before any other issues are tried be timely made, i.e., within a reasonable period of time before commencement of trial so that inconvenience of witnesses and possible prejudice to the petitioner can be avoided. Whether the motion is timely made should be within the sound discretion of the trial court. To hold otherwise would be to allow the Legislature to unlawfully interfere with the power of the courts to administer justice in the conduct of trials. (Cf. Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753 [32 P.2d 960].)
Since the motion in the instant case was timely made, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court.