A legal battle that has stretched over six years culminated in a California appellate court's decision to uphold the dismissal of a lawsuit for failure to bring it to trial within the mandated timeframe. Francisco Carrascal filed a complaint against Avi-Ben Abraham, Jr. in San Mateo County Superior Court on July 3, 2017, but his case was dismissed by the trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 for not reaching trial within five years.
The original complaint, which included two co-plaintiffs who are not part of this appeal, was filed in July 2017 and amended in October 2019. In January 2020, the trial court partially sustained Abraham’s demurrer but required him to file an answer within 20 days. Despite several procedural steps including requests for default judgment and case management conferences, the case did not progress to trial.
Carrascal contended that he faced numerous obstacles, including delays attributed to Abraham's lack of response and technical difficulties during virtual hearings. He also argued that the trial court showed bias and made factual errors regarding his litigation efforts. Specifically, Carrascal claimed that he had diligently prosecuted his case and that the trial court allowed it to drag on without granting default judgments against Abraham.
The appellate court reviewed these claims but found no merit in them. The judges noted that under section 583.360 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is mandatory for cases to be dismissed if not brought to trial within five years unless specific statutory exceptions apply. The COVID-19 pandemic emergency rules extended this deadline by six months; however, Carrascal still failed to meet the adjusted deadline of January 3, 2023.
Carrascal’s appeals included allegations of judicial bias and improper actions by a court commissioner who initially dismissed the case due to prosecution delays. Although the trial court later overturned this dismissal on grounds that the commissioner lacked authority, it ultimately reaffirmed the dismissal because of Carrascal’s failure to bring the matter to trial within the statutory period.
In addition to procedural missteps like failing to provide proof of service for motions and default requests, Carrascal also accused Abraham of making defamatory statements during hearings without judicial reprimand. However, these accusations were insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias or due process violations according to stringent legal standards.
The appellate court concluded by affirming the lower court's judgment with Judges Brown (Presiding Judge), Streeter and Goldman concurring in their decision under Case ID A168240.