Stueve v. Buchalter Nemer
7 Cal. App. 5th 746
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs filed a civil complaint on September 24, 2010 alleging fraud and related claims against multiple attorneys/law firms.
- Jury selection (voir dire) began in a large courtroom on September 21, 2015, with a panel of 75 prospective jurors assembled.
- The court clerk administered the oath of truthfulness to the entire panel and voir dire commenced; voir dire continued through September 23 and was recessed.
- On September 28, 2015 (within five years of filing), defendants moved to dismiss under the five-year dismissal statute (§ 583.310 et seq.), arguing the case had not been "brought to trial."
- The trial court granted dismissal, concluding a jury is not "impaneled and sworn" until the actual trial jurors are selected and sworn.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the panel was "impaneled and sworn" when the venire assembled and took the truthfulness oath at the start of voir dire.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When is an action "brought to trial" under the five‑year rule for a jury case? | Assembling the venire and administering the voir dire oath constitutes being "impaneled and sworn," so the case was brought to trial within five years. | The requirement is satisfied only when the actual trial jurors are selected and sworn to try the cause, not when the venire is sworn for voir dire. | The action was brought to trial when the jury venire was assembled and sworn for voir dire; dismissal was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 717 (Cal. 2011) (states rule that in a jury action it is brought to trial when the jury is impaneled and sworn)
- Hartman v. Santamarina, 30 Cal.3d 762 (Cal. 1982) (Supreme Court endorsed impaneling and swearing as satisfying the five‑year rule)
- Silcox v. Lang, 78 Cal. 118 (Cal. 1889) (impaneling of a jury is part of the trial)
- Hilliard v. A. H. Robbins Co., 148 Cal.App.3d 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (venire sworn and voir dire begun within five years satisfies the statute)
- Kadota v. San Francisco, 166 Cal.App.2d 194 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958) (a jury case is brought to trial when examination of prospective jurors commences)