Marra
Marra v. Mission Foods Corp.
Opinion
Opinion
Merrill, J.
In this case, we decide that the stipulation giving the defendant an open extension of time to plead to the complaint did not bar dismissal of the action for delay in prosecution when the stipulation was for the benefit of the plaintiff, and upon giving notice, he could require the defendant to file a responsive pleading.
Factual and Procedural Background
On April 14, 1989, plaintiff David Marra filed this action which arose out of the termination of his distributor relationship with defendant Mission Foods Corporation in August 1987. On July 11, 1989, defendant’s counsel wrote a letter to plaintiff’s counsel, detailing numerous deficiencies in the complaint and asking him to consider filing an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s counsel then granted defendant an open extension of time to respond to the complaint, terminable upon 30 days’ notice. Defendant’s confirming letter stated that, “This extension was given so you and your clerk can have additional time to review the points raised in our July 11, 1989 letter regarding the deficiencies in your complaint.”
Thereafter, plaintiff did not pursue the case for 20 months, until March 28, 1991, when plaintiff’s counsel…