Putnam

Putnam v. Clague

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 139·3 Cal. App. 4th 542·5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 25·92 Daily Journal DAR 1919·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1217
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 1992Docket Nos. F014197, F014202, F014371California9,271 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thaxter, J.

These three consolidated appeals present the frequently raised, always troubling, question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing an action for delay in prosecution. We hold that when the plaintiff makes a credible showing of excuse, based on counsel’s decisions which are not clearly unreasonable, dismissal should not be ordered unless the defendant was prejudiced by the delay or some other circumstance shows that the interests of justice are best served by dismissal. Here, the plaintiffs made a sufficient showing of excuse, and the defendant showed no prejudice or other factors justifying dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse.

Procedural and Factual Background

Michael and Geralyn Putnam filed a complaint against defendant Brian Clague, M.D., for medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and loss of consortium on May 29, 1987. Eddie and Marcia Ragsdale filed a similar complaint on June 9, 1987, and Gene and Leona Hess did likewise on December 1, 1987. Paul V. Melodía of the law firm of Walkup, Shelby, Bastían, Melodía, Kelly & O’Reilly represented the Putnams and Hesses throughout the pendency of their actions. The Ragsdales filed their…

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.