Burton v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. CA2/2 ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/30/24 Burton v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. CA2/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
    not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has
    not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    RAMONA BURTON,                                           B324426
    Plaintiff and Appellant,                        (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BC694770)
    v.
    LONG BEACH UNIFIED
    SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.,
    Defendants and
    Respondents.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Anthony J. Mohr and Maurice A. Leiter, Judges.
    Affirmed.
    Michael S. Traylor for Plaintiff and Appellant.
    McCune & Harber, Dana John McCune and David M.
    Gillen for Defendants and Respondents.
    Appellant and plaintiff Ramona Burton appeals the
    dismissal of her employment discrimination lawsuit against
    respondents Long Beach Unified School District and individual
    defendants. Appellant challenges the dismissal that was
    prompted by appellant not being ready to proceed on the day of
    trial. Given appellant’s repeated delays and lack of
    unpreparedness, there was no abuse of discretion. We affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Initial filing and default
    On February 21, 2018, appellant filed a complaint against
    respondents alleging various employment-related claims.
    Respondents served their answer, though due to mistake failed to
    file their answer. On July 9, 2019, appellant obtained entries of
    default against all respondents, claiming a failure to have filed
    an answer to the first amended complaint.
    Discovery and sanctions
    While in default, respondents sought to depose appellant.
    When appellant did not appear for the deposition, respondents
    filed a motion for evidentiary sanctions, which was heard and
    granted on September 26, 2019. Respondents subsequently
    obtained relief from the default on October 30, 2019.
    Trial setting and continuances
    The case was initially set for trial on March 21, 2022, and
    continued to March 24, 2022, and then June 27, 2022. As the
    parties were attempting to settle the case, the trial date was
    continued several more times, ultimately to September 19, 2022.
    Trial proceedings and dismissal
    When called for trial on September 19, 2022, appellant did
    not appear. The court continued the trial to September 21, 2022,
    2
    and issued an order to show cause (OSC) regarding the failure to
    prosecute. On September 21, the trial and OSC were further
    continued to September 22, 2022, due to a potential settlement.
    The court then cautioned that a finalized settlement agreement
    was needed; otherwise, the case would be tried or dismissed.
    Appellant filed a notice of settlement. Yet on September 22,
    2022, respondents indicated to the court there was no settlement
    because appellant had made substantial changes to the
    agreement. The court agreed there was no settlement due to
    appellant’s revisions, and noting the matter had been repeatedly
    continued, the court ordered trial would proceed that day or the
    case would be dismissed.
    Appellant’s counsel was not present in court, so trial was
    delayed several hours to allow counsel to appear. The court also
    ordered if appellant’s counsel was not present and ready to start
    trial, the case would be dismissed. When the matter was recalled,
    appellant’s counsel did not appear, citing lack of proper attire.
    The court responded that appropriate attire was not necessary
    and postponed the matter until later in the day. Several hours
    later, appellant’s counsel appeared.
    The court observed the trial had been postponed for months
    while the parties tried to settle. It reiterated the parties had been
    made aware that if there was no settlement, the trial would
    proceed or the case would be dismissed. When asked if appellant
    was prepared to proceed, appellant’s counsel answered he was
    not. The trial court then dismissed the matter without prejudice.
    Appellant filed a timely appeal from the judgment of
    dismissal.
    3
    DISCUSSION
    I.     Standard of review
    We review a trial court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute
    for abuse of discretion. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 
    39 Cal.3d 311
    ,
    331.) Under this standard, we will not disturb the trial court’s
    decision unless it “‘exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the
    circumstances before it being considered.’” (Denham v. Superior
    Court (1970) 
    2 Cal.3d 557
    , 566.)
    II.    There was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the
    case
    The record demonstrates the trial court exercised
    considerable patience and provided ample opportunity for the
    parties to reach a settlement or for appellant to be ready for trial,
    before ultimately dismissing the case. Importantly, the court had
    previously cautioned the parties they must be prepared to move
    forward with trial if the case does not settle.
    An OSC regarding the failure to prosecute was set when
    appellant’s counsel did not appear for the September 19, 2022
    trial date. At the September 21, 2022 hearing, the court was
    informed of a potential settlement and the trial and the order to
    show cause were continued to September 22, 2022.
    The parties could not agree to a settlement. Despite
    multiple continuances and clear admonitions, when the case was
    called for trial on September 22, 2022, appellant’s counsel
    announced they were not ready to proceed, and the trial court
    dismissed the case.
    The trial court’s decision to dismiss the case after
    appellant’s counsel was not ready to proceed, despite clear prior
    warnings, falls within the bounds of reason. We therefore find no
    abuse of discretion in the trial court’s dismissal of the case.
    4
    Appellant contends the trial court erred in dismissing her
    case because she filed a notice of settlement the previous day.
    However, the record shows that when the case was called for
    trial, there was no enforceable settlement agreement. Since the
    case had been pending for over four years and had not settled, it
    was not error to expect appellant to be prepared for trial, as trial
    readiness is critical to conducting efficient court proceedings,
    preserving judicial resources, and ensuring fairness to all
    litigants.
    Appellant raises several other issues on appeal, including
    challenges to the trial court’s imposition of evidentiary sanctions
    while respondents were in default, the denial of her motions for
    relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 657, and
    the denial of her motion for reconsideration. Given our conclusion
    that the dismissal was proper based on appellant’s failure to
    proceed at trial, we need not and do not address these additional
    arguments.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment of dismissal is affirmed. Respondents are to
    recover their costs on appeal.
    ________________________
    CHAVEZ, J.
    We concur:
    ________________________             ________________________
    LUI, P. J.                           ASHMANN-GERST, J.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B324426

Filed Date: 10/30/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2024