IBRAHIM HASSAN VS. PEETS COFFEE ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC20586697 - June 22, 2026 Hearing date: June 22, 2026 Case number: CGC20586697 Case title: IBRAHIM HASSAN VS. PEETS COFFEE ET AL Case Number: | | CGC20586697 | Case Title: | | IBRAHIM HASSAN VS. PEETS COFFEE ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-22 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Dismissal; Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Ibrahim Hassam; Exhibits | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, June 22, 2026, Line 1, PLAINTIFF IBRAHIM HASSAN'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Dismissal.

The unopposed motion to vacate dismissal is denied. This action was dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 583.360, for failure to bring the action to trial within five years. Plaintiff filed the complaint on September 22, 2020, and it was dismissed on March 24, 2026. Plaintiff seeks to vacate the dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 473, subdivision (b), and 583.340, subdivision (c).

"Under 583.340(c), the trial court must determine what is impossible, impracticable, or futile in light of all the circumstances in the individual case, including the acts and conduct of the parties and the nature of the proceedings themselves. The critical factor in applying these exceptions to a given factual situation is whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in prosecuting his or her case." . . . A plaintiff's reasonable diligence alone does not preclude involuntary dismissal; it is simply one factor for assessing the existing exceptions of impossibility, impracticability, or futility. . . .

Determining whether the subdivision (c) exception applies requires a fact-sensitive inquiry and depends "on the obstacles faced by the plaintiff in prosecuting the action and the plaintiff's exercise of reasonable diligence in overcoming those obstacles." (Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 717, 730-731 [citation simplified].)

Plaintiff contends that it was impossible, impracticable, or futile to bring the case to trial within five years because (1) he had medical issues during the pendency of the case that made it impossible for him to pursue the case; and (2) he was unable to secure representation.

With respect to the second basis, the court credits his declaration that he was unable to find counsel, but this does not demonstrate impossibility or impracticability because parties may represent themselves.

With respect to Plaintiff's medical issues, Plaintiff's initial moving papers provided a doctor's note discussing Plaintiff's doctor's appointments on a handful of days in March and April 2026, at the tail end of the five-year period (appropriately tolled by the COVID-era Emergency Rule 10) and beyond it. The doctor's note does not say that Plaintiff was incapable of moving the case forward and covers only a small period of the time at issue.

In a supplemental declaration, Plaintiff presents additional medical records. These records document medical issues but also state that he performed housework and cared for his wife. Plaintiff also presents a statement from his physician which opines that plaintiff's "conditions and the side effects of his medication could potentially cause drowsiness and impact his management of administrative tasks." (Thiru Statement, para. 7.) This statement attests only to impact, not to an inability to perform any tasks to move the case forward. (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) | |