Discover Bank vs. Chris A Bradfield

34-2017-00210953-CL-CL-GDS: Discover Bank vs. Chris A Bradfield 07/16/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

34-2017-00210953-CL-CL-GDS: Discover Bank vs. Chris A Bradfield 07/16/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal in Department 16D

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court issues the following ruling on the OSC re: dismissal issued by the Court of June 11, 2026.

Pursuant to the OSC issued by the Court on June 11, 2026, the Court stated that Plaintiff Discover Bank was ordered to show cause why the instant action filed more than nine years ago on April 12, 2017 should not be dismissed for failure to bring the matter to trial within five years pursuant CCP § 583.360(a). Plaintiff was directed to file a response to the OSC no later than July 2, 2026. Plaintiff failed to file a response to the OSC.

“[A]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” (CCP § 583.310.) “[A]n action shall be dismissed after notice to the parties, if the action is not brought to trial within the time prescribed in this article.” (CCP § 583.360(a).) Dismissal is mandatory and not subject to extension, excuse, or exception, except as expressly provided by statute. (CCP § 583.360(b).) “In computing the time within which an

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2017-00210953-CL-CL-GDS: Discover Bank vs. Chris A Bradfield 07/16/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal in Department 16D

action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: (a) [t]he jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended; (b) [p]rosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined; (c) bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile.” (CCP § 583.340.) The time during which one of the three conditions existed is excluded in computing the five year period. (Tamburina v. Combined Ins. Co. of America (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 323, 328.) “A circumstance of impracticability will not toll the statutory five-year deadline unless the plaintiff shows a ‘causal connection’ between the circumstance and moving the case to trial.” (Id., at 333.)

The determination “of whether the prosecution of an action was indeed impossible, impracticable, or futile during any period of time, and hence, the determination of whether the impossibility exception to the five-year statute applies, is a matter within the trial court’s discretion.” (Sanchez v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1271.) “What is impossible, impracticable or futile must be determined 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.” (Moran v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 229, 238.)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Judicial Council adopted Emergency Rules pertaining to civil matters. Pertinent here, Rule 10 of the Emergency Rules provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other law, including Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, for all civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020, the time in which to bring a civil action to trial is extended by six months, for a total of five years and six months.” (CRC, Appendix I, Emergency Rule 10.) proceedings themselves.” (Moran v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 229, 238.) In addition, civil jury trials were suspended by the Sacramento Superior Court from March 17, 2020 until January 4, 2021 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff had an additional 113 days (difference between the six months provided in Emergency Rule 10 and the 293 days between March 17, 2020 and January 4, 2021) as a result.

Without any tolling, the five-year deadline expired on April 12, 2022. That time was extended by six months to October 12, 2022 as a result of Emergency Rule 10 and then an additional 113 days to February 2, 2023. More than three years have passed since the February 2, 2023 deadline expired.

As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the OSC and has entirely failed to demonstrate that the five-year statute should be extended any further than February 2, 2023. Akin to failing to oppose a noticed motion, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the OSC is construed as a concession

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2017-00210953-CL-CL-GDS: Discover Bank vs. Chris A Bradfield 07/16/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal in Department 16D

on the merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

The action was not brought to trial by February 2, 2023, which reflects the five-year period extended due to Emergency Rule 10 and the time when civil trials were suspended. No stipulation to continue the action beyond the mandatory five-year deadline was executed. Dismissal is mandatory.

As a result, the action is dismissed without prejudice. (CCP § 581(g); Franklin v. Wilson (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 187, 215.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.