Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.
51 Cal. 4th 717
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Dana Bruns filed a TCPA claim against E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. and others on February 22, 2000.
- The five-year period to bring the action to trial under CCP 583.310 began with commencement of the action.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on November 22, 2006, arguing the five-year limit had elapsed.
- The trial court and Court of Appeal confronted whether time during stays, including partial discovery stays, could be excluded under CCP 583.340.
- The trial court granted dismissal; the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded; this court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held that 583.340(b) applies only to complete stays, while 583.340(c) governs partial stays, and remanded for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 583.340(b) excludes partial stays | Bruns contends partial stays toll the period under (b). | Bruns argues stays of any proceedings toll the clock; the court should count all time. | 583.340(b) applies only to complete stays; partial stays are not automatically excluded. |
| Role of 583.340(c) for partial stays | Partial stays should be tolling under (c) if impossible, impracticable, or futile to proceed. | Court should not apply (c) to exclude time unless conditions fit its standard. | Partial stays, if tolling at all, must be evaluated under 583.340(c) with a fact-intensive diligence analysis. |
| What constitutes impossible, impracticable, or futile under (c) | Plaintiff argues diligence concerns should not defeat tolling when circumstances hinder trial. | Defendants emphasize a strict, fact-based inquiry into impossibility and impracticability. | Trial court must assess circumstances and reasonable diligence; no automatic exclusion under (c). |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcus v. Superior Court, 75 Cal.App.3d 204 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1977) (stay of arbitration acts as complete stay tolling five-year limit)
- Wong v. Earle C. Anthony, Inc., 199 Cal. 15 (Cal. 1926) (prosecution broadly defined as all steps from commencement to final determination)
- Melancon v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.2d 698 (Cal. 1954) (deals with breadth of 'prosecution' concept in tolling)
- Holland v. Dave Altman’s R. V. Center, 222 Cal.App.3d 477 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1990) (definitions of 'stay' in context of CCP 583.340)
- Sierra Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court, 217 Cal.App.3d 464 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1990) (ordinary delays not excluded under (c); diligence required)
- Brunzell Constr. Co. v. Wagner, 2 Cal.3d 545 (Cal. 1970) (impracticability and futility standard in (c) inquiries)
- Perez v. Grajales, 169 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (reasonable diligence required to justify tolling under (c))
- Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores, 10 Cal.4th 424 (Cal. 1995) (guidance on assessing diligence and impossibility under (c))
- Marcus v. Superior Court (repeated for context), 75 Cal.App.3d 204 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1977) (stay implications for tolling)