Dick

Dick v. Superior Court

Good Law
185 Cal. App. 3d 1159·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2069·230 Cal. Rptr. 297
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 1986B019349California3,791 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

By this proceeding, William Dick, petitioner, seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent court to vacate its order denying his motion to specially set his personal injury action for trial before expiration of the five-year period allowed for that purpose by Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. The issue before us is whether, given the totality of relevant circumstances, respondent’s denial of petitioner’s motion was an abuse of discretion. We conclude that it was.

The facts are as follows:

On May 20, 1980, petitioner sustained personal injuries as a result of exposure to toxic fumigants at the 92d Street Grammar School in Los Angeles. On March 17, 1981, a complaint was filed on petitioner’s behalf against the Los Angeles Unified School District (school district), real party in interest herein. In September 1981, school district answered the complaint and, concurrently, cross-complained against Target Chemical Company (Target), Micro-Gen Equipment Corporation (Micro-Gen) and Fairfield American, Inc. (Fairfield). Subsequently, petitioner twice amended his complaint to substitute certain of these cross-defendants for the Doe defendants named in his original…

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.