Gentry

Gentry v. Nielsen

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 3d 27·176 Cal. Rptr. 385·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2091
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 26, 1981Civ. 19170California2,952 words

Opinion

Opinion

Blease, J.

Plaintiff George Gentry appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the Placer County Superior Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon Gentry’s failure to bring the action to trial within five years from the date upon which the action was filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583, subd. (b).) We hold that the mere granting of an open extension of time to answer, which is exercised two years prior to the expiration of the five-year dismissal period of section 583, subdivision (b), does not waive or toll the statutory period where the plaintiff had the opportunity to bring the case to trial within the period and his failure to do so was in no way related to the extension of time. We affirm the judgment.

Facts

On September 16, 1974, Gentry filed a complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court charging defendants (Drs. Calmar Nielsen and Robert Henrichsen), among others, with negligence in the rendering of medical care and treatment to Gentry. Personal service was not made upon either of them until March 1977. Shortly after service, the parties stipulated in writing to an open extension of time within which defendants could respond to the complaint.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.