Waxman

Waxman v. Boren, Elperin, Howard & Sloan

Good Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 643·221 Cal. App. 3d 519·270 Cal. Rptr. 540
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 19, 1990B037757California571 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fukuto, J.

Introduction

Cross-complainants, Arlene and Jerry Waxman (the Waxmans), appeal from the dismissal of their cross-complaint for professional malpractice against their former attorneys, Boren, Elperin, Howard & Sloan, a professional corporation, Boren and Sloan, a partnership, and Jeffrey Boren, William Elperin, Roger Howard, and Norman Sloan, individuals (collectively, Boren). The dismissal was ordered for delay in prosecution pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 et seq. The Waxmans, in this appeal, contend the trial court erred in ordering the dismissal because of the tolling and extension provisions of section 583.350. The Waxmans argue that section 583.350 barred discretionary dismissal of the cross-complaint for delay in prosecution less than six months following rescission of an agreement giving Boren an open extension of time to file a response to the cross-complaint. We affirm the judgment.

The Facts

The essential facts are not in dispute. In April 1983, the Waxmans and several others were sued by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (Hongkong) for money due under a written guaranty. On June 9, 1983, the Waxmans cross-complained against…

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.