50 Cal.App.5th 963
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Jose B. was placed under an LPS conservatorship in 2008; the Los Angeles County Public Guardian was appointed conservator and renewed annually without objection for 10 years.
- On February 28, 2018 the Public Guardian filed a petition to reappoint; at the March 15, 2018 hearing Jose contested and demanded a jury trial.
- Section 5350(d)(2) provides court or jury trial shall commence within 10 days of a demand (with up to a 15‑day continuance at the proposed conservatee’s counsel’s request); the 10th day here fell on March 26, 2018.
- The court scheduled initial readiness for May 24, 2018 and, after additional continuances largely tied to counsel availability, trial began July 30, 2018 — 137 days after the demand.
- A jury found Jose presently gravely disabled; the trial court reappointed the Public Guardian. Jose appealed, arguing the court violated §5350(d)(2) and denied him due process by failing to commence trial within 10 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court’s failure to commence a conservatorship jury trial within 10 days of a demand requires dismissal (is §5350(d)(2) mandatory or directory) | Section 5350(d)(2) is mandatory; failure to start within 10 days requires dismissal of the petition | The 10‑day start requirement is directory; statute provides no penalty and courts retain jurisdiction to manage dockets | Directory: §5350(d)(2) is directory, not mandatory; delay does not mandate dismissal |
| Whether the 137‑day delay violated Jose’s due process/right to a speedy determination | Delay denied due process and prejudiced Jose | No showing of prejudice; Jose received a fair trial and does not challenge the jury verdict | No due process violation: no demonstrated prejudice, so judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of John L., 48 Cal.4th 131 (describing LPS conservatorship framework and grave‑disability standard)
- James M., 30 Cal.App.4th 293 (holding §5350(d)(2) is directory and delay does not divest jurisdiction)
- Conservatorship of M.M., 39 Cal.App.5th 496 (addressing forfeiture and holding time limit directory in context)
- Briggs v. Brown, 3 Cal.5th 808 (separation‑of‑powers concern supports treating court time limits as directory when strict deadlines would impair judicial functions)
- Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hosp., 2 Cal.5th 330 (framework for deciding whether statutory time limits are mandatory or directory)
- Conservatorship of Kevin M., 49 Cal.App.4th 79 (distinguishing mandatory five‑day demand rule for conservatee’s right to demand trial)
- Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal.4th 529 (articulating due process balancing in conservatorship proceedings)