Black v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. CA1/1
A161284
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background:
- Black submitted an insurance claim to Fireman’s Fund; after disputes and heated communications, Fireman’s Fund sued Black for alleged extortion and related torts (prior unpublished appeals summarized earlier proceedings).
- Fireman’s Fund later dismissed its complaint without prejudice; Black filed a cross-complaint (including bad-faith insurance claims) on January 26, 2015.
- Significant discovery delays occurred: Black repeatedly rescheduled his expert’s depositions, the trial court ordered production by July 20, 2018, denied multiple extension requests, and imposed sanctions that were affirmed on appeal.
- Fireman’s Fund moved on January 29, 2020 to dismiss the cross-complaint under Code Civ. Proc. §583.310 for failure to bring the action to trial within five years; the trial court granted the motion, finding no impossibility, impracticability, or futility under §583.340(c).
- Black appealed, raising (among other arguments) that attorney misconduct excused the delay and constitutional challenges to §583.310; the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal and awarded costs to Fireman’s Fund.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under CCP §583.310 was proper for failure to bring action to trial within five years | Black argued delays were excused and dismissal violates public-policy favoring trial on the merits | Fireman’s Fund argued statutory five-year rule applies and no applicable exception | Affirmed: dismissal proper; plaintiff failed to show statutory exception applied |
| Whether §583.340(c) exception (impossibility, impracticability, futility) applied due to prior counsel’s misconduct and resulting 21-month delay | Black claimed prior attorney’s health, conflicts, file problems, and delays made it impracticable to proceed and time should not be charged to him | Fireman’s Fund pointed to Black’s lack of diligence and court findings that he caused discovery delay | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; Black failed to prove reasonable diligence or that delays met §583.340(c) standards |
| Whether constitutional challenges to §583.310 (due process, vagueness, deprivation of vested right) bar dismissal | Black raised facial and as-applied constitutional attacks | Fireman’s Fund opposed; also argued issues were forfeited by failing to raise them below | Court: constitutional arguments forfeited on appeal and not considered |
| Whether other allegations (fraud on court, collusion, inconsistent rulings) required reversal | Black alleged fraud and procedural error without detailed record support | Fireman’s Fund denied and noted arguments were conclusory and undeveloped | Court rejected these claims as conclusory, inadequately developed, and unsupported; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Landry’s Restaurants, Inc., 26 Cal.App.5th 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (discusses CCP §583.310 five-year rule and exclusions)
- Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 717 (Cal. 2011) (explains §583.340(c) exceptions and diligence standard)
- Ballard v. Uribe, 41 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1986) (presumption of correctness on appeal; burden on appellant to show error)
- In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (Cal. 2004) (issues not raised below are forfeited on appeal)
- Jordan v. Superstar Sandcars, 182 Cal.App.4th 1416 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (diligence required even close to statutory deadline)
- Niko v. Foreman, 144 Cal.App.4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (appellate court need not develop undeveloped or conclusory arguments)