Barron v. Santa Clara Cnty. Valley Transp. Auth.

316 Cal.Rptr.3d 148

Marcelina BARRON, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.SANTA CLARA COUNTY VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

H050277

Court of Appeal, Sixth District.

Filed December 14, 2023

Trial Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court No.: 17CV305880, Trial Judge: The Honorable Socrates Peter Manoukian (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 17CV305880)

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant Marcelina Barron: Diane Lanell Balma, Adriana L. Artunduaga Mendez, Christopher Owen Holleran, Glen Stephen Guenard, Anthony C. Wallen, Carmenella Athena Roussos

Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent, Santa Clara County Valley, Transportation Authority et al.: Shannon Smyth-Mendoza, Richard Douglas North

Wilson, J.

In 2017, plaintiff Marcelina Barron filed a civil suit for general negligence against defendants Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority and Bruce Ar- nold Gaillard (collectively Santa Clara VTA) concerning injuries Barron had sustained from a bus accident. After multiple continuances of the trial date, Santa Clara VTA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the case had not been brought to trial within the five-year statute of limitations provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.¹ The trial court subsequently granted the motion to dismiss.

Barron now appeals the dismissal on the ground that Emergency rule 10(a) (Cal. Rules of Court, appen. I, Emergency rule 10(a)), which was passed by the Judicial Council of California during the COVID-19 pandemic, extended the five-year period in section 583.310 by six months such that Barron did bring the case to trial within the prescribed statute of limitations.

For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the judgment of dismissal, reinstate the action, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Factual Background

On July 4, 2016, Barron was a passenger in a bus owned and operated by Santa Clara VTA and driven by Gaillard. Gaillard allegedly was driving the bus at an unsafe speed and struck another vehicle, resulting in Barron being injured.

B. Procedural Timeline

1. Complaint and Setting of Trial Dates

On January 31, 2017, Barron filed a civil complaint for general negligence against multiple defendants, including Santa Clara VTA. On May 18, 2017, Barron amended her complaint to include Gaillard as the driver of the bus. Santa Clara VTA and Gaillard filed answers to Barron’s complaint on March 16, 2017, and August 22, 2017, respectively.

The matter was first set for trial on April 8, 2019. Prior to expert discovery being conducted, Barron requested a continuance. The matter was next set for trial on August 12, 2019, but was continued again at Barron’s request to February 10, 2020. The trial date was continued for a third time, again at Barron’s request, to July 13, 2020, but was taken off calendar due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A new trial setting conference was subsequently set for January 26, 2021, but was continued to May 25, 2021, as Barron had not yet had surgery for her injuries sustained from the accident. Due to conflicting schedules of the experts expected to testify, a new trial date was set for May 9, 2022. Although Barron and her counsel appeared on this date ready for trial, the trial court continued the May 9, 2022 trial date on its own motion due to lack of courtroom availability.

At a trial setting conference on June 21, 2022, the matter was set for trial on July 11, 2022.

2. Motion to Dismiss

On May 20, 2022, Santa Clara VTA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to section 583.310. This motion was based on Santa Clara VTA’s assertion that the five-year period from the date of filing ended on January 31, 2022, and the parties had not stipulated or otherwise agreed to extend the deadline beyond this date. Relying on the case of Ables v. A. Ghazale Brothers, Inc. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 823, 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 289 (Ables), Santa Clara VTA claimed that the five-year statute of limitations period in section 583.310 was not extended by Emergency rule 10(a) because this was only an administrative rule, not a statute. While conceding that the Judicial Council of California had the power to pass emergency rules relating to the administration of courts, Santa Clara VTA argued that the Judicial Council did not have the power to "take over" the legislative function by tolling statutes of limitations in civil cases. Santa Clara VTA concluded that since there was no statutory basis for extending the five-year statutory deadline, Barron’s complaint should be dismissed.

On May 27, 2022, Barron filed her opposition to the motion to dismiss. Barron argued that Santa Clara VTA misinterpreted the holding in Ables as invalidating Emergency rule 10(a); instead, Ables only ruled that Emergency rule 10(a) did not provide for an additional six-month extension of time as provided in section 583.350² because it was an administrative rule, not a statute. Barron also noted that unlike the instant matter, the trial date in Ables was set for five years and seven months after the complaint had been filed and therefore did not fall within the time limit provided by Emergency rule 10(a). By referencing the five-year and six-month period under Emergency rule 10(a) in a footnote, the Ables court, according to Barron, did not criticize the validity of the rule.

Barron additionally claimed that even if Emergency rule 10(a) was procedurally invalid, she was still entitled to an extension of time under section 583.340³ because the COVID-19 pandemic and its subsequent impact on court services made it impossible for her to bring the matter to trial within five years. Finally, Barron argued that it would "offend public policy" to punish her for not bringing the matter to trial within five years when there was significant periods of time when it was impossible to do so.

3. Trial Court Decision

On June 7, 2022, the trial court heard argument from the parties on the motion and took the matter under submission. During the hearing, the trial court indicated that it was "hard to be sympathetic" when Barron had previously continued the trial date four times and the trial setting conference twice. The trial court also noted that there was "a long list" of cases indicating that local rules and state rules of court could not contravene statutes enacted by the legislature. Further, the trial court opined that nothing had occurred during the five-year period that would justify tolling the time under section 583.340 to bring the action for tidal.

[1] The trial court issued an order on June 24, 2022, granting the motion to dismiss. In its ruling, the trial court agreed with Santa Clara VTA that pursuant to Ables, Emergency rule 10(a) did not toll the five-year statute of limitations under section 583.350. While the trial court did not explicitly state in its order that Emergency rule 10(a) was invalid, the trial court disagreed with Barron’s argument that the footnote in Ables demonstrated that Emergency rule 10(a) validly tolled the statutory deadline in section 583.310 by six months. The trial court further noted that the exceptions under section 583.340 only applied if Barron demonstrated she had exercised reasonable diligence in prosecuting the case, and found that Barron had not met this burden. The court additionally indicated that while not raised by Barron, the doctrine of equitable estoppel⁴ did not apply to preclude the granting of the motion to dismiss.

4. Motion for Reconsideration

Prior to filing her notice of appeal, Barron filed a motion for reconsideration on July 1, 2022.⁵ Barron argued that the dismissal was issued in error because (1) trial could still be held within the five-year and six-month time period contemplated under section 583.310 and Emergency rule 10(a); and (2) Emergency rule 10(a) had not been invalidated by the Ables decision.

In opposition, Santa Clara VTA claimed that Barron had not cited any new facts, circumstances or law as required for reconsideration under section 1008, and simply "rehash[ed]" her arguments from her previous opposition. Santa Clara VTA also requested that the trial court amend its prior order to fix a number of errors and submitted a proposed amended order with its opposition. While many of the errors were typographical, the primary ones cited were: (1) the age of the case as over five years old, not six; (2) the pronoun "her" instead of "his" when referring to Barron; (3) the number for the applicable emergency rule as 10, instead of 5; and (4) the correct trial date to be vacated as July 11, 2022, not July 5, 2023.

On September 6, 2022, the trial court issued the amended order as requested by Santa Clara VTA.

On September 15, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on Barron’s motion for reconsideration. The trial court concluded that because Barron had already filed a notice of appeal for the dismissal on August 4, 2022, the matter had been removed from the trial court such that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion.⁶

II. Discussion

Barron claims that her complaint should not have been dismissed because it was brought to trial within the time limit provided under section 583.310 and Emergency rule 10(a). Barron further argues that the trial court’s ruling, which essentially found Emergency rule 10(a) to be unlawful and invalid, should be reversed based on public policy.

Santa Clara VTA claims that the appeal is untimely and that the five-year statute of limitations in section 583.310 could not lawfully be amended by Emergency rule 10(a).

A. Timing of Appeal

As a threshold matter, Santa Clara VTA claims that Barron’s appeal is premature because her notice of appeal was filed prior to the filing of the amended order. Santa Clara VTA argues that because the amended order contained substantial modifications, it superseded the original order and became the final judgment.

[2] We disagree. In the instant matter, the...