Vincent vs. Pourtemour

The Motion is timely. (See, Rutter, California Practice Guide: Administrative Law Ch. 20-C, Procedural Motions, Section 20:195.) All written evidence before an administrative agency considering and ruling on an issue must be included in the administrative record put before the court for the court’s review. (Consol. Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201.) The record must include documents referenced by and considered by the agency. (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 335.)

Although the subject documents should have been produced earlier, Respondent has produced a declaration providing a reason for the delay, which the court accepts at face value. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.) To the extent petitioners City of Ontario and Monte Vista Water District (Petitioners together) have due process concerns, the court is open to continuing trial and permitting Petitioner to file an amended trial brief based upon whatever additional information the 15 spreadsheets might have that is applicable to the case.

Parties are to come prepared to discuss a potential continuance and new briefing schedule.

Petitioners’ objection is overruled as the declaration merely fills in the gaps created by the opposition. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522, 1538.)

Respondent shall give notice.

304 Vincent vs. Before the Court is a motion by Defendant Ryan Pourtemour Pourtemour pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 583.310 for an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed by plaintiff Joseph Vincent. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice.

Section 583.310 states: “An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” Section 583.340 states: “In computing the time within which an 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) The jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended. (b) Prosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined. (c) Bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile.”

Here, the complaint was filed on March 17, 2021 in San Mateo County. On April 15, 2021 San Mateo County Superior Court entered an order transferring the case to this court. On July 23, 2021 the transfer was completed. While the Court had limited authority to make certain orders during this 99-day period while the transfer was pending, the Court’s jurisdiction “to try the action was suspended.” (Thompson v. Thames (1997) 57 Cal. App. 4th 1296, 1303–1304 [“the filing of a motion for change of venue operates as a supersedeas or stay of proceedings, and the court cannot rule on other substantive issues while the motion for change of venue is pending.”].)

With the additional 99 days excluded from the calculation of time as required by Section 583.340, this means the five-year period under Section 583.310 will run on June 24, 2026.

As the five-year period has not yet run, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court notes that on March 30, 2026, the parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding the five-year deadline and to either submit a stipulation or make an ex parte application to address the issues. (See ROA 944.) This was well