Lakshmi Sambandham vs. Rebecca Diane Hill

34-2021-00299111-CU-PO-GDS: Lakshmi Sambandham vs. Rebecca Diane Hill 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Bring Action to Trial within 5 Years in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf 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

34-2021-00299111-CU-PO-GDS: Lakshmi Sambandham vs. Rebecca Diane Hill 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Bring Action to Trial within 5 Years in Department 8D

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 be 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 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D 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****

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Rebecca Campoy Hill’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Bring the Action to Trial within Five Years is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This is a personal injury action brought by Plaintiffs Lakshmi Sambandham (“Sambandham”) and Boominathan Ramanathan (“Ramanathan”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that while Sambandham was at 6736 Will Rogers Drive (Will Rogers Middle School) in Fair Oaks, California she was attacked by a dog “which is owned, controlled, harbored and/or kenneled by Defendants, who knew or should have reasonably known of his/her vicious and/or dangerous propensities and knew or should have reasonably known their dog was inclined to attack people in their vicinity.” (Complaint at p. 4.) Plaintiffs further allege that Sambandham was injured from said attack. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs’ form complaint, filed on April 20, 2021, alleges causes of action for general negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium.

Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360 on the grounds that Plaintiffs have failed to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00299111-CU-PO-GDS: Lakshmi Sambandham vs. Rebecca Diane Hill 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Bring Action to Trial within 5 Years in Department 8D

bring the action to trial within five years. Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that the motions filed by Defendant required Plaintiffs “to engage in extensive dispositive motion litigation, including factual investigation, evidentiary analysis, written opposition, and trial preparation through approximately November 2025.” (Opp., p. 1:26-28.)

This matter is set for trial on July 21, 2026.

Discussion

Plaintiffs argue that the instant motion should be denied because after the matter was referred to the trial setting process on December 6, 2024, counsel for Defendant substituted out for new counsel in March of 2025. Defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment, requiring Plaintiffs to expend time to oppose the motion.

“[A]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.360(a).) Dismissal is mandatory and not subject to extension, excuse, or exception, except as expressly provided by statute. (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.360(b).)

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.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 350, an action is commenced when the complaint is filed. The complaint in this action was filed on April 20, 2021. More than five years has passed. Plaintiffs’ opposition presents no evidence of reasonable diligence or related grounds to warrant exclusion of additional time pursuant to section 583.340(c). At most, Plaintiff's counsel argues that counsel was busy from June 4, 2025 to September 29, 2025 preparing an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Rudorfer Decl., ¶¶ 6-8.) Plaintiff presents no evidence as to Plaintiffs’ diligence in prosecuting the matter for the remaining four years and eight months the case was pending, other than conclusory statements that “Plaintiffs continued actively

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00299111-CU-PO-GDS: Lakshmi Sambandham vs. Rebecca Diane Hill 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Bring Action to Trial within 5 Years in Department 8D

prosecuting the action through written discovery, document production, supplementation of discovery responses, continued factual investigation, and ongoing trial preparation.” (Opp., p. 4:1-3.) The Court is not persuaded. Plaintiffs filed their action on April 20, 2021, and almost four years elapsed before Defendant’s counsel substituted out. Plaintiffs further do not explain why the substitution of counsel would cause such a delay in prosecution that it would require extension of the five year time to bring the matter to trial. (See Wiggins v. Washington Nat. Life Ins. Co. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 840, 846 [“no excuses for non-compliance with C.C.P. 583 will be accepted, unless they may fairly be said to make a trial impracticable.”].)

As Plaintiff has failed to establish any valid basis for tolling the five year statute to bring this case to trial, this Court must dismiss this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360. The action was not brought to trial within five years, no stipulation to continue the action beyond the mandatory five year deadline was executed and the five year period has not been tolled. Dismissal is mandatory.

The motion is granted and the matter is dismissed.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers.