Nguyen v. Inter-Coast Internat. Training CA2/4
B305944
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 3, 2021Background
- Anthony Nguyen filed a class action on May 13, 2011 alleging wage-and-hour violations; Cheryl Alexander was later added and the class was certified in September 2015.
- Inter-Coast filed two petitions to compel arbitration that were appealed; the superior court case was stayed for 495 days (June 15, 2012–Oct. 23, 2013) and 854 days (Feb. 16, 2016–June 20, 2018).
- The court granted summary judgment (dated Oct. 25, 2019) as to the named plaintiffs and 247 of 418 class members based on releases; that ruling was not served on counsel until January 2020.
- Trial had been set for January 21, 2020 (with the parties aware of the five-year deadline); after summary judgment plaintiffs sought to substitute a class representative and continue.
- Inter-Coast moved to dismiss under the five-year rule (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.310); the trial court granted dismissal (Feb. 13, 2020) and denied leave to amend; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 31–June 14, 2012 period (petition to compel arbitration) is a stay excluded from the five-year computation | That the court’s May 31, 2012 minute order (“case is stayed”) created a complete stay and those 14 days must be excluded | The order merely stayed discovery and did not stay the entire action for purposes of § 583.340(b) | Court treated May 31–June 14, 2012 as a stay and excluded those 14 days |
| Whether Oct. 23, 2015–Feb. 1, 2016 (second petition to compel arbitration) should be excluded as a stay | That the petition itself created a stay pending ruling | The filing of a petition does not automatically stay proceedings; the record shows the court did not stay the action | Argument forfeited below; record shows proceedings continued, so no exclusion |
| Whether the period plaintiffs waited for unsigned/unsent discovery and summary-judgment orders (Sept/Oct 2019–Jan 2020) is excludable under § 583.340(c) as making trial impossible/impracticable/futile | Plaintiffs were prevented from completing critical depositions and merits discovery because Inter-Coast would not comply without a signed court order; delay thus made bringing the case to trial impracticable | Plaintiffs failed to monitor the docket; the signed order was available online; plaintiffs weren’t reasonably diligent | Court found plaintiffs not reasonably diligent, rejected subdivision (c) relief, and refused to exclude that period |
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled to the six-month extension under § 583.350 if less than six months remained at the end of tolling | If additional tolling pushed the deadline to Feb. 6, 2020, plaintiffs would be entitled to a six-month extension | No six-month add-on applies absent a stay in the immediately preceding six months / no qualifying tolling | Court declined to award § 583.350 relief because the qualifying tolling/stay did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 717 (Cal. 2011) (distinguishes bright-line subdivision (b) stays from discretionary subdivision (c) impossibility/practicability exceptions)
- OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, 8 Cal.5th 111 (Cal. 2019) (filing a petition to compel arbitration does not automatically stay proceedings)
- Perez v. Grajales, 169 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (issues not raised below are ordinarily forfeited on appeal)
- Tanguilig v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 22 Cal.App.5th 313 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (elements plaintiff must prove to invoke § 583.340(c): circumstance, causal connection, and reasonable diligence)
- Wilshire Bundy Corp. v. Auerbach, 228 Cal.App.3d 1280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (diligence to monitor the case increases as the five-year deadline approaches)