Weber v. Taylor CA2/8

Filed 1/31/25 Weber v. Taylor CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

CHRISTINE WEBER, B329353

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC129036 v.

JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elaine W. Mandel, Judge. Appeal treated as petition for writ and writ denied.

James Bruce Taylor, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Fisher & Fisher and Howard S. Fisher for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________

SUMMARY Defendant James Bruce Taylor, in propria persona, appeals from an order denying his motion to dismiss plaintiff Christine Weber’s lawsuit for failure to bring the case to trial within five years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.) Defendant has ignored virtually all the rules governing appellate briefs, including by entirely omitting any citations to the record to support his arguments – a deficiency which subjects his claims to forfeiture on appeal. In any case, his appeal, which we treat as a writ petition, has no merit; the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion. FACTS As best we can tell from the briefs, plaintiff sued defendant to recover $150,000 she alleges was investment capital for a proposed medical cannabis delivery service. Plaintiff asserts the transaction was a scam to extort money from her, and defendant asserts plaintiff was his partner in “a crime scheme that failed.” We need not delve into any details, because it is clear that the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the case. This is the timeline. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed her complaint. On August 1, 2022, trial was scheduled for June 5, 2023. On February 27, 2023, defendant brought a motion to dismiss for failure to bring the case to trial within five years. On March 6, 2023, the trial court kept the then-currently scheduled trial date of June 5, 2023. On March 30, 2023, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the case. The court’s minute order explained that an emergency rule of the California Rules of Court, issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, extended the time within which matters must be brought to trial by six months, a period which had not yet expired. (See Cal. Rules of Court, appen. I,