Hattersley

Hattersley v. American Nucleonics Corp.

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 125·3 Cal. App. 4th 397·4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 331·92 Daily Journal DAR 1749·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1092
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 4, 1992B055863California1,614 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

Thomas Hattersley appeals from an order dismissing his cross-complaint for failure to bring the action to trial within three years after reversal on appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.320, subd. (a)(3).) We reverse and hold the three-year period was tolled three hundred fourteen days because of courtroom unavailability. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.340, subd, (c); Chin v. Meier (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1473, 1477-1478 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 499 ]; Rose v. Scott (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 537, 542 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 487 ].)

In 1982 respondent American Nucleonics Corporation sued appellant, a former employee, for money due on a $41,100 promissory note. Appellant cross-complained for wrongful termination and fraud. Following a jury trial, verdicts were entered on the complaint and cross-complaint. Both sides appealed.

As to appellant, we affirmed on liability but reversed the $71,070 fraud judgment and remanded for retrial solely on the issue of compensatory damages. (American Nucleonics Corporation v. Hattersley (June 5, 1987) B013957 [nonpub. opn.].) The remittitur was filed in the trial court on August 10, 1987.

In 1988 appellant requested a preferential trial setting based on the three-year…

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.