Randall v. Intel International Corp. CA3

Filed 1/24/24 Randall v. Intel International Corp. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

DAWN VIRGINIA RANDALL, C097853

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2016- 00205482-CU-PO-GDS) v.

INTEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Dawn Virginia Randall appeals from judgments dismissing her personal injury action against defendants Intel International Corporation (Intel) and Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (Jones Lang) (collectively defendants) for failure to bring the action to trial within five years, as required by Code of Civil Procedure1 section 583.310. She contends the trial court erred by dismissing her case because the parties had executed

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

1

a written stipulation necessarily contemplating that the trial would occur beyond the presumed statutory deadline, and thus defendants waived application of the deadline. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 27, 2016, Randall filed a complaint asserting a single cause of action against defendants for negligence under theories of premises liability. Defendants filed answers and the case progressed through discovery. In March 2019, Jones Lang moved to continue trial until at least September 2019 pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. Trial was then set for December 2019, but Jones Lang moved to continue trial until July 2020 pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. The trial court granted the motion. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Randall’s trial was continued until further notice. In September 2020, the matter was referred to the trial setting process for selection of a mandatory settlement conference and trial date. In February 2021, Randall moved to continue trial pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and to be referred back to the trial setting process. The trial court granted the motion. In June 2022, Randall moved pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to continue the trial that had been set for July 25, 2022, and be referred back to the trial setting process. The stipulation provided, “It is hereby stipulated between [counsel for the parties] that the trial, which is currently set for July 25, 2022[,] and the mandatory settlement conference, which is currently set for June 8, 2022, all be continued. [¶] Mrs. Randall underwent surgery to her lumbar spine approximately three weeks ago. This was the final step in her treatment. So all counsel would like time to subpoena her medical records and engage in private mediation before trying the case. [¶] Plaintiff and defense counsel would like to be referred back to the [c]ourt’s trial setting calendar, so that we may select a new trial date.” The trial court granted the motion.