Trejo v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer CA2/4, B324219

Christopher Trejo sued Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. after suffering Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis from taking Motrin (ibuprofen).
The initial 2011 trial resulted in a $48 million verdict for Trejo, later reversed on appeal in 2017, and remanded for a limited retrial on failure to warn claims.
Following remand, significant delays occurred, including extensive pretrial motions, deficient filings, COVID-19 court closures, and repeated changes in counsel and expert witnesses.
The statutory three-year retrial deadline (plus COVID-19 extensions) lapsed without the case being brought to trial, prompting Johnson & Johnson to successfully move for dismissal.
Trejo appealed, arguing certain periods should have been excluded or tolled from the retrial deadline calculation due to court continuances, judicial disqualification motions, and judge’s vacation/business.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Court “unilaterally” continued hearings	Deadline should be tolled for periods of court-ordered delays	Trejo did not properly raise/did not exercise diligence	No tolling; Trejo forfeited by failing to timely raise below
Pending statements of disqualification	Impracticable to try before a judge sought to be disqualified	Delays from meritless/disqualified motions are avoidable and by Trejo	No tolling; invited/avoidable delay from Trejo
Judge’s vacation or “press of business”	Such periods should be excluded from retrial time calculations	Normal court scheduling isn't impracticable for trial prep	No tolling; ordinary court delays not excusable
Overall diligence and tolling doctrine	Was reasonably diligent during relevant periods	Trejo repeatedly missed deadlines and did not use available remedies	No diligence; delay primarily due to Trejo

Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., 62 Cal.4th 1081 (Cal. 2016) (defining standards for mandatory dismissal and the exceptions for impracticability/impossibility)
De Santiago v. D & G Plumbing, Inc., 155 Cal.App.4th 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (requirements for excusing mandatory trial deadlines under Code Civ. Proc. § 583.340)
Hartman v. Santamarina, 30 Cal.3d 762 (Cal. 1982) (tolling of trial deadlines after timely pretrial peremptory challenge to judge)
Lee v. Park, 43 Cal.App.4th 305 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (plaintiffs responsible for tracking trial deadlines)
Wilshire Bundy Corp. v. Auerbach, 228 Cal.App.3d 1280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (highest diligence required as deadline approaches)