Notice And Motion To Dismiss Complaint
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday, June 02, 2026, Line 1. Defendant Ron Olguin's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is granted. Notice is limited to the relevant facts properly subject to notice given the materials presented and does not, for example, extend to the truth of assertions in pleadings or transcripts. (See Richtek USA, Inc. v. UPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 659-660.) "Although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable." (Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 114.)
Defendant contends the court should exercise its discretion to dismiss this action because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute its claims. In certain circumstances, the court has discretion to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. (See Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.410 & 583.420; California Rules of Court, rules 3.1340 & 3.1342.) Defendant urges the court to dismiss the action under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420(a)(2)(B) due to Plaintiff's failure to bring the action to a resolution within two years.
Defendant has not established that the conditions for application of the two-year rule have been met. Thus, three years is the relevant time frame under section 583.420(a)(2)(A). This action was filed on 8/12/2016, but it was stayed from 11/2/2016 through 2/2/2023, then on appeal from 5/15/2024 through 12/30/2024. Basically, the action has been active in this court for 35 months, which, of course, is less than three years.
But whether the court applies a two- or three-year rule, the court declines to exercise its discretion to dismiss the action. Weighing the record as whole and the conditions and factors set out in rule 3.1342, the court cannot say that Plaintiff has been so unengaged and inactive to support a finding of failure to prosecute and justify dismissal of its claims. The law favors zeal in prosecution and, at the same time, disposition on the merits. On this record, the court finds the balance tips towards disposition on the merits.
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?”
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. .
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (302/JMQ) | |