Vinayagam v. Debbad CA3

Filed 11/14/25 Vinayagam v. Debbad CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

NITHYA VINAYAGAM, C101504

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34201400167448CUFRGDS) v.

SHRAVAN DEBBAD,

Defendant and Respondent.

Nithya Vinayagam commenced the underlying action in 2014. She appeals from a judgment of dismissal based on her failure to bring the action to trial within five years. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.310, 583.360.)1 Vinayagam contends it was impossible and impracticable to bring the matter to trial. We affirm the judgment of dismissal.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

I. BACKGROUND On August 8, 2014, Vinayagam filed a complaint against Shravan Debbad and NRISoft, Inc. alleging claims for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, concealment, and false promise. After earlier unsuccessful attempts, the complaint was personally served on January 8, 2016. Default was entered as to Debbad on April 11, 2016, and as to NRISoft on May 9, 2016. In December 2017, Vinayagam requested the court enter a $1.8 million judgment in her favor. The court rejected this request, explaining in part that the complaint did not provide notice of damages in any amount and that Vinayagam was required to file and serve an amended complaint providing this notice. The court explained that doing so would open the default and give defendants a new opportunity to answer the complaint. On March 21, 2018, Vinayagam’s counsel filed a first amended complaint alleging the same causes of action but specifying that Vinayagam sought at least $342,618.13 in special damages and at least $500,000 in general damages. Thereafter, Vinayagam’s attorney sought to be relieved as counsel based on “an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.” The court granted her attorney’s most recent motion to be relieved as counsel in September 2019. In April 2021, the court rejected Vinayagam’s attempt to file a second amended complaint on the basis that leave of court was required. In March 2024, the court denied Vinayagam’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 and, on its own motion, issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed pursuant to section 583.360, subdivision (a). Vinayagam filed a response. The response did not include any citations to evidence or attach any evidence. It did argue that the time during which the action must be brought to trial should be tolled and that the action “could not [sic] brought to trial, because Plaintiff needed discovery and testimony from Shravan Debbad.”