MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 07/24/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 19CV359049 Brandon Flora MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION vs Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC et al. Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 21CV376210 George Ku et al. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL vs Harald Herchen Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 2 LINES 3-6 24CV453483 Shivan Verma vs Santa Motion: Compel Answers x 4 Clara Valley Transportation Authority Vacated by moving party LINE 7 24CV453851 Jason Stean MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS vs Associated Locating, Inc. et al Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 7 LINE 8 25CV471687 Berkshire Hathaway MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Homestate Insurance Company vs Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 8 Andy Le LINE 9 25CV479556 Francisco Don DEMURRER Velasquez vs Allied Universal Please CTRL click (or scroll down to) Line 9 Security et al.
LINE 10 26CV497944 James Keene OSC TRO/Preliminary Injunction vs David Apt. Manager The parties are ordered to appear in person or remotely.
9:01 CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV430720 Capital One N.a. vs Hearing: Claim of Exemption Mayra Mendoza At the last hearing, claimant was instructed to file supplemental documents. Claimant failed to do so. Accordingly, the claim of exemption is denied.
Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-0202 within 7 days of the hearing
Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Brandon Flora v Bass Pro Outdoor World. LLC Case No. 19CV359049
Defendant Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Bring Action to Trial Within Five Years (CCP §§ 583.310, 583.360)
Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 requires an action to be brought to trial within five years after commencement of the action. Dismissal is mandatory unless the plaintiff establishes that sufficient time is excluded under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340. (§ 583.360.) Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that bringing the action to trial was impossible, impracticable, or futile within the meaning of section 583.340, subdivision (c). (Bruns v. E- Commerce Exchange, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 717, 731
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The parties agree that, after application of Judicial Council Emergency Rule 10, the operative deadline to bring this action to trial was May 26, 2025. The dispute is whether additional time should be excluded pursuant to section 583.340(c).
The Court recognizes that Plaintiff's prosecution of this action was not exemplary. Plaintiff did not aggressively pursue affirmative discovery, nor did Plaintiff obtain a trial date before expiration of the statutory period. These facts weigh in favor of dismissal. However, the inquiry is not limited to whether Plaintiff could have prosecuted the case more expeditiously. Rather, the Court must consider "all the circumstances in the individual case, including the acts and conduct of the parties," with the critical inquiry being whether Plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence under the circumstances. (Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1081, 1100.)
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes Plaintiff has met that burden.
The record reflects that Plaintiff actively participated in the litigation by responding to written discovery, appearing for deposition, submitting to an independent medical examination, participating in ADR efforts, and appearing at case management proceedings. Although Plaintiff did not serve significant affirmative discovery until later in the litigation, the record does not establish that Plaintiff abandoned or failed to prosecute the action altogether.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated periods during which bringing the matter to trial was impracticable within the meaning of section 583.340(c). Counsel submitted evidence of extraordinary circumstances, including serious family medical emergencies, a premature birth, a federally declared natural disaster, and repeated criminal trial obligations entitled to statutory priority. The Court finds these circumstances materially distinguish this case from ordinary scheduling conflicts and constitute circumstances beyond Plaintiff's reasonable control.
The Court also considers Defendant's conduct. The record reflects Defendant failed to appear at multiple scheduled court proceedings over several years, resulting in the Court issuing an Order to Show Cause regarding Defendant's failure to appear. Defendant also identified
extensive periods of trial unavailability due to other trial commitments. Under Gaines, the conduct of both parties is relevant in evaluating reasonable diligence and whether bringing the matter to trial was impracticable.
After weighing all of the circumstances, the Court concludes Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient periods during which bringing the matter to trial was impracticable under section 583.340(c). Accordingly, the time excluded under that statute extends the applicable deadline beyond the date on which this matter was ultimately set for trial. Mandatory dismissal under sections 583.310 and 583.360 therefore is not warranted.
The Court does not reach Plaintiff's alternative estoppel argument because the motion is resolved under section 583.340(c).
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the hearing.
- oo0oo -