C097673
Cal. Ct. App.May 19, 2025Background
- Barry S. Jameson, while incarcerated, allegedly performed work for which he was not paid and filed a lawsuit in 2001 against the California Department of Corrections and other defendants seeking damages for nonpayment of wages.
- Over 23 years elapsed between the filing of the complaint and the trial court’s dismissal of the action.
- There were numerous procedural complications, including unresolved issues of service of process, entry of default requests, some defendants’ dismissal, and one defendant’s death.
- The trial court dismissed the action under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.360 for failure to bring the case to trial within five years as required by § 583.310.
- Jameson, representing himself, argued that the time to bring the case to trial should have been tolled due to stays or lack of jurisdiction.
- The trial court found no valid basis for tolling the five-year period and entered judgment for defendants with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandatory 5-Year Dismissal | The period should be tolled due to stays/lack of jurisdiction | The five-year period was not tolled; dismissal mandatory | For defendants; dismissal mandatory |
| Entry of Default Against Defendants | Defendants failed to appear or answer in time; default should have been entered | Defendants did answer; requirements for default not met | For defendants; no basis for default |
| Tolling Under CCP § 583.340 (stays, impossibility) | Court’s jurisdiction was suspended and/or action stayed repeatedly | No records of stay or impossibility sufficient to toll period | For defendants; no evidence justifying toll |
| Standard for Self-Represented Litigants’ Appeals | Pro se litigant entitled to additional consideration | Pro se litigant must follow same procedural and substantive rules | For defendants; same rules apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (judgments and orders presumed correct; appellant’s burden to show reversible error)
- Dill v. Berquist Construction Co., 24 Cal.App.4th 1426 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (default judgment void without proper service of process)