Lourick v. Northland Group CA3

Filed 11/19/25 Lourick v. Northland Group CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

MARIANNE LOURICK, C100136

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34201700211482CUMCGDS) v.

NORTHLAND GROUP, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Marianne Lourick appeals from a judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants Northland Group, Inc., LVNV Funding, LLC, and Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. (collectively, “Defendants”) based on her failure to bring her action against them to trial within five years. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.310, 583.360.)1 On appeal, Lourick contends the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case because it was impractical to

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

1

continue litigating the matter while a different defendant (H&H) had an appeal pending. We affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND The record on appeal consists entirely of the court’s judgment, the notice of entry of judgment, Lourick’s notice of appeal, and Lourick’s notice designating the record on appeal. As such, our procedural and factual background is limited to the information contained in these documents and any attachments thereto. On April 20, 2017, Lourick filed the underlying action. In September 2023, the court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Lourick’s operative complaint. The court extended the deadline to bring the matter to trial based on the COVID-19 pandemic, and found that the deadline to bring the matter to trial had been February 6, 2023. Lourick had apparently argued in response to Defendants’ motion that the court should exclude an additional 995 days during which H&H’s appeal of the denial of its special motion to strike was pending. According to the trial court, Lourick argued “ ‘[a]s a result of the appeal from the denial of the special motion to strike, further trial proceedings on the merits should have been automatically stayed.’ ” The trial court disagreed. It explained Lourick “fails to elucidate how H&H’s appeal from the denial of its special motion to strike embraced the other causes of action against Defendants, who were not parties to that motion.” On October 19, 2023, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Lourick filed a timely appeal. II. DISCUSSION “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) The party challenging the judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41