Messih

Messih v. Levine

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 203·228 Cal. App. 3d 454·278 Cal. Rptr. 825·91 Daily Journal DAR 2891·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1819
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 12, 1991No. B046114California2,062 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Woodsfred, J.

*456 Opinion

Almost seven years after it was filed, a complaint was dismissed pursuant to the mandatory five-year dismissal statute (Code Civ. Proc., 1 § 583.310 2 ). Appellant claims the limitation period was automatically tolled by his postarbitration trial de novo request, by the filing of his appeals, and because it was “impossible, impracticable, or futile” (§ 583.340) to bring the action to trial sooner. We reject appellant’s claims and aifirm the judgment.

Procedural Background

On November 22, 1982, appellant, a pharmacist, filed a four-count complaint alleging wrongful termination. An answer was filed February 15, 1983. Delays were immediate and varied. On September 28, 1983, appellant’s attorney, Eli M. Kantor, moved to withdraw as attorney of record, declaring under penalty of perjury that appellant had “repeatedly refused to answer routine interrogatories, such as his social security number and drivers license.” Mr. Kantor further declared that appellant, despite repeated requests, refused to relinquish an original prescription belonging to respondent Lee Drug Co. The withdrawal motion was granted November 7, 1983. On November 15, 1983, appellant moved for…

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.