Jorge Mansfield v. Santa Barbara Freight Corp., Pacific Coast Transportation Inc. and Barry Toole

Montoya v. Toole, 23CVP-0099 (Lead Case) 23CVP-0296

Hearing: Motion to Dismiss

Date: September 1, 2026

Jorge Mansfield filed an action, 23CVP-0296, on September 7, 2023, against Santa Barbara Freight Corp., Pacific Coast Transportation Inc. and Barry Toole (collectively Defendants) (the Mansfield Action). On May 28, 2024, the Court granted an order relieving Mansfield’s counsel. Mansfield has been self-represented since that date.

On September 3, 2024, the Mansfield Action was consolidated with Montoya v. Toole, 23CVP-0099 (the Montoya Action). The Montoya Action is the lead case. Montoya settled as to the entirety of his case, and on February 2, 2026, Montoya dismissed his entire complaint.

Mansfield has failed to appear in or participate in the action since he became in pro per. (See Declaration of Lindsay N. Gavigan.) Defendants now move to dismiss Mansfield’s complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410.

The initial hearing on the motion was continued for proof of proper service on Mansfield. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1342(a).)

Defendants have now provided proof of proper service of the papers and continued hearing date. Within 15 days after service of the notice of motion, the opposing party may serve and file a written opposition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1342(b). No opposition was filed.

A court has the discretion to dismiss an action for delay in prosecution if it is not brought to trial or conditionally settled within two years after the action is commenced against the defendant. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 483.410(a), 483.410(a), Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1340(a); see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026), § 11:124.)

In ruling on a contested motion, the Court must consider the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1342(e). However, “[t]he failure of the opposing party to serve and file a written opposition may be construed by the court as an admission that the motion is meritorious, and the court may grant the motion without a hearing on the merits.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1342(b).)

No opposition was filed by Mansfield and therefore the Court deems the motion meritorious.

ORDER (PROPOSED)

Defendants’ motion is granted. Mansfield’s entire complaint is dismissed.

Defendants shall come prepared to discuss how they wish to proceed with regard to the pending cross-complaints.

2