Merchant Advance Pay v. Choi CA4/3

Filed 10/22/25 Merchant Advance Pay v. Choi CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MERCHANT ADVANCE PAY, INC.,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063992

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017- 00952223) TAI YOUNG CHOI, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David J. Hesseltine, Judge. Affirmed. Decker Law, James Decker, and Aisling Gorman for Plaintiff and Appellant. Benice Law and Jeffrey S. Benice for Defendant and Respondent.

Merchant Advance Pay, Inc. challenges the dismissal of its action against Tai Young Choi under the five-year rule (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310), contending the period had not expired or the rule was unenforceable.1 It asserts (1) the order vacating the trial date amounted to a stay of trial under section 583.340, subdivision (b); (2) the order amounted to a stay of prosecution under the same provision; (3) it was impossible, impracticable, or futile to bring the case to trial under section 583.340, subdivision (c); (4) the parties had stipulated to extend the five-year period under section 583.330; and (5) Choi was equitably estopped from invoking the five-year rule. Like the trial court, we conclude nothing tolled, extended, or excused the five-year period. We therefore affirm. FACTS Merchant filed this action against Choi in October 2017. There is no dispute the five-year deadline, tolled six months by the pandemic, would have expired (unless further tolled) in April 2023. Three weeks before the August 2019 trial date, Merchant applied ex parte to continue trial pending resolution of consolidated cases it initiated in the Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Mizu” litigation). It claimed, “[I]t makes good sense to have the [Mizu] case tried first as that will resolve . . . the issue of whether or not [Merchant] engaged in any misconduct, which is a pivotal issue in both cases.” It asked for “a trial continuance to beyond January 2020.” With its motion, Merchant filed a stipulation between the parties. The parties “agree[d] that trial should be continued to a date after the [Mizu]