Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.
62 Cal. 4th 1081
| Cal. | 2016Background
- Fannie Marie Gaines sued multiple defendants in 2006 alleging fraud and seeking rescission of a deed; the case proceeded with amendments, substitutions, and pretrial disputes.
- Aurora was added as a defendant in 2008 and needed time to retain counsel and file responsive pleadings; parties agreed to mediate and proposed a 120‑day stay.
- On April 3, 2008 the trial court struck the September 22, 2008 trial date and ordered the case stayed for 120 days, except that previously served written discovery responses were to be produced; a mediation was scheduled within 90 days.
- The stay actually lasted 217 days because of subsequent judicial reassignments; mediation did not resolve the entire case though one defendant was dismissed shortly thereafter.
- In May 2012 a defendant moved to dismiss under Code Civ. Proc. § 583.310 (must bring to trial within five years); trial court and Court of Appeal dismissed for delay (all but one defendant), and the California Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 120‑day mediation/stay tolled the five‑year period under § 583.340(b) (stay of prosecution or trial) | The court’s order struck the trial date and stayed the case, so the prosecution was stayed and the time should be excluded | The order was a stipulated continuance/partial stay that permitted discovery and mediation, so it did not constitute a complete stay under § 583.340(b) | Not tolled: the order was a continuance/partial stay and did not halt all proceedings, so § 583.340(b) does not apply |
| Whether mediation is part of the prosecution such that mediation‑orders toll § 583.340(b) automatically | Mediation is an alternative but here was court‑ordered and integrated into the case, so it should toll | Mediation is a means to settle, not a court abatement like arbitration; § 1775.7 shows mediation ordinarily does not toll unless it extends past 4.5 years | Mediation is a step in the action but does not convert a partial stay into a complete stay; § 1775.7 confirms mediation generally does not automatically toll early in litigation |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars defendants from claiming non‑tolled time because they agreed to the stay | Defendants agreed to the stay and should be estopped from invoking dismissal | Letters and application explicitly reserved rights and did not mention tolling the five‑year statute; no detrimental reliance shown | No estoppel: record shows no agreement or conduct reasonably leading Gaines to believe the five‑year period would be tolled |
| Whether § 583.340(c) (impossible, impracticable, or futile) tolled the period because the partial stay made trial impracticable | The strike of the trial date and the stay (even partial) made it impracticable to try the case during the period; plaintiff lacked control | Plaintiff agreed to the stay, retained ability to prepare, mediation and limited discovery continued, and plaintiff did not show lack of diligence | Not tolled: trial court reasonably found plaintiff voluntarily controlled the delay, made meaningful progress (mediation, partial settlement), and did not show an extraordinary impracticability |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruns v. E‑Commerce Exchange, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 717 (explains § 583.340(b) requires a stay that encompasses all proceedings to toll automatically)
- Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores, 10 Cal.4th 424 (discusses limits on automatic tolling for arbitration/ADR statutes)
- J. C. Penney Co. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 666 (party stipulations that merely extend trial dates do not extend five‑year period absent clear intent)
- Marcus v. Superior Court, 75 Cal.App.3d 204 (stay pending contractual arbitration tolled § 583 under complete‑stay reasoning)
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. 333 (early rule requiring clear stipulation to extend five‑year period)
- Holland v. Dave Altman’s R.V. Center, 222 Cal.App.3d 477 (example distinguishing continuance from stay where trial delayed pending appellate outcome)
- Sierra Nevada Memorial‑Miners Hosp. v. Superior Court, 217 Cal.App.3d 464 (discusses § 583.340 interpretation and Law Revision Commission commentary)