Reported / Citable
Background
Teresa Randolph sued the Trustees of the California State University and others in April 2019, asserting employment-discrimination, whistleblower-retaliation, and wrongful-termination claims arising from her work at CSU Chico. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, she had five years to bring her case to trial, plus a six-month extension under Judicial Council emergency rule 10 (Covid-era), making her statutory deadline October 19, 2024.
At a March 2024 case management conference, the trial court set the jury trial for February 3, 2025 — about three and a half months past the statutory deadline. Defendants did not object. After the deadline passed without trial, defendants moved to dismiss under sections 583.310 and 583.360. Randolph argued the parties had orally stipulated to extend the deadline by accepting the February 2025 trial date in open court.
The trial court dismissed the case, finding no oral stipulation had occurred. Randolph appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Section 583.330 allows the parties to extend the five-year statutory deadline either by written stipulation or by ‘oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.’ Randolph relied on the oral-agreement exception.
The court held that defendants’ silence — their failure to object when the trial court set the trial date past the deadline — is not the equivalent of an oral agreement to extend. Section 583.330 requires affirmative agreement, and the burden to bring the case to trial within the statutory deadline rests on the plaintiff. The minute order from the March 2024 conference reflected only the setting of trial-related dates; it did not memorialize any stipulation. No reporter’s transcript existed to fill the gap.
Because no qualifying stipulation existed and no other statutory exception applied, dismissal was mandatory under section 583.360.
Key Takeaways
- The plaintiff bears the obligation to bring an action to trial within the five-year statutory deadline (plus any applicable emergency-rule extension); silence by the defendant does not extend the period.
- An oral stipulation to extend the five-year deadline must be affirmative, made in open court, and either entered in the minutes or memorialized in a reporter’s transcript.
- Failure to object to a trial date set beyond the deadline is not equivalent to an oral stipulation under section 583.330.
- Plaintiffs whose trial date is set beyond the statutory deadline should obtain a written stipulation or an explicit, transcribed oral agreement; otherwise, the case is at risk of mandatory dismissal.
- Trial courts have no equitable discretion to escape section 583.360 once the deadline runs and no statutory exception applies.
Why It Matters
The decision is a sharp warning to California civil litigators about the strict mechanics of section 583.310’s five-year rule. Plaintiffs cannot rely on a permissive trial-setting practice or on a silent defendant; they must affirmatively secure an extension that complies with section 583.330. Defense counsel, by the same token, do not waive their right to seek dismissal merely by participating in calendar setting and not objecting at the time.
For plaintiffs and their counsel, the practical lesson is to track the five-year deadline (and any applicable emergency-rule extension) from day one and to memorialize any extension in a written stipulation or in a transcribed open-court statement. For defense counsel, the case underscores the value of monitoring deadlines and being prepared to move for dismissal once they pass without a qualifying extension.