Warner Bros. Entm't Inc. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., 240 Cal. Rptr. 3d 438

Background

Plaintiffs (Stuntman, Inc., later substituted) filed a putative class action on Jan 29, 2013, alleging Warner Bros. underaccounted home-video revenues to profit participants.
The five related studio actions were ordered related on Mar 4, 2013; Judge Berle entered an Initial Status Conference Order on Feb 15, 2013 (applied here) imposing a 43-day stay of responsive pleadings and formal discovery while imposing extensive case-management duties.
Plaintiffs sought class certification; discovery (including a 25-film "Pioneer" sample) produced documents through May 2015; class-certification deadlines were extended repeatedly; plaintiffs filed the class-motion on July 3, 2017.
The original plaintiff died in Oct 2013; substitution tolled the statute for 32 days; the parties agreed that, at minimum, tolling placed the earliest possible five-year expiration at Mar 2, 2018.
On Mar 2, 2018 Warner filed a motion to dismiss under the five-year rule; plaintiffs simultaneously sought trial preference. On Mar 26, 2018 the trial court denied dismissal, found tolling for 43 days and 32 days, and set trial and the class-certification hearing for Apr 10, 2018.
Warner sought a writ; the Court of Appeal granted the writ, concluding the initial 43-day stay did not constitute a complete stay under §583.340(b) and that the trial-court’s April 10 trial preference was an abuse of discretion given class-action doctrine and the impracticality of meaningful notice before the statute ran.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 43-day initial status-order stay tolled the five-year period under §583.340(b)	The stay halted prosecution (no responsive pleadings or discovery), so time should be excluded.	The order required substantial case-management steps and voluntary document exchange; it was not a "complete stay" stopping prosecution.	The court held the 43-day order was not a complete stay under Bruns/Gaines; §583.340(b) did not toll the period.
Whether additional tolling under §583.340(c) applied (impossible/impracticable/futile)	The complexity (Pioneer sample, parallel tracking of related cases) made bringing the action to trial impracticable, justifying tolling many days.	Those are ordinary, foreseeable incidents of complex litigation and do not render trial impossible or impracticable.	The court rejected tolling for the Pioneer and parallel-track periods; only the 32 days for substitution after the named plaintiff's death were tolled.
Whether granting trial preference and setting trial for Apr 10, 2018 (before or immediately at five-year cutoff) was proper in a putative class action	Plaintiffs argued preference was necessary to avoid mandatory dismissal and proposed procedural mechanisms (bifurcation, pro forma commencement) to avoid one-way intervention.	Defendant argued trial preference would violate Fireside Bank and Massey principles and prejudice defendant due to lack of merits discovery and inadequate time for class notice.	The court held granting preference and the Apr 10 setting was a manifest abuse of discretion: it conflicted with Fireside Bank and Massey and would not allow meaningful notice or avoid one-way intervention.
Whether defendant waived its protection against one-way intervention (Fireside Bank)	Plaintiffs argued Warner waived rights by earlier engaging in limited summary-adjudication and scheduling, or failing to timely object to scheduling.	Warner limited any waiver to specific claims and preserved rights on the principal class merits; it did not forfeit the right to object to resolving merits pre-certification.	The court held Warner did not waive Fireside Bank protections; limited waiver on collateral claims did not permit merits resolution before certification.

Key Cases Cited

Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 717 (California Supreme Court) (§583.340(b) tolls only for complete stays that stop prosecution of the action altogether)
Gaines v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 62 Cal.4th 1081 (California Supreme Court) (partial stays that require progress in the case do not automatically toll the five-year rule)
Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 1069 (California Supreme Court) (courts should not resolve merits in putative class actions before certification absent compelling justification; guards against one-way intervention)
Massey v. Bank of America, 56 Cal.App.3d 29 (Cal. Ct. App.) (class action subject to dismissal under five-year rule if class issues and notice cannot be completed with minimally reasonable time)
Hartman v. Santamarina, 30 Cal.3d 762 (California Supreme Court) (pro forma commencement of trial can, in narrow unjust-dismissal circumstances, preserve right to trial when five-year bar looms)
Salas v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 42 Cal.3d 342 (California Supreme Court) (trial-preference standard requires consideration of court calendar, plaintiff diligence, prejudice to defendant; plaintiff must show some excusable delay)