Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Plaintiff’s Claim of Sandbagging by Judge, Defendant Rejected
Opinion Says Dismissal Was Mandatory Where Defendant’s Counsel Agreed to Court Setting Trial Date That Was More Than Five-and-a-Half Years After Filing of Action; Requisites for Oral Agreement to Extend Deadline Missing
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Third District Court of Appeal said in an opinion certified for publication on Friday that dismissal of a case was mandatory based on not being brought to trial by the statutory deadline, as extended by a court rule, spurning the plaintiff’s contention that she was blindsided because the judge set the trial date and the defendants agreed to it.
Acquiescence by the defendants constituted an agreement by them to extend the deadline, plaintiff/appellant Teresa Randolph argued, to no avail. Statutory requirements for an oral agreement to an extension were absent, the opinion says.
Justice Stacy E. Boulware Eurie authored the opinion, initially filed Dec. 30, affirming a judgment granted by Butte Superior Court Judge Stephen E. Benson in favor of defendants Trustees of the California State University and others. They were sued by Randolph for employment discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination.
CCP §583.310
Under Code of Civil Procedure §583.310, an action must be dismissed if it is not brought to trial within five years, but a Judicial Council emergency room tacks six months onto that period in light of the COVID-19 epidemic.
Randolph brought suit on April 19, 2019, meaning the deadline was in October 2024. At a March 2024 case management conference, Benson set the trial for Feb. 3, 2025.
On Nov. 1, 2024, the defendants moved for a dismissal. The judge granted the motion, ruling that it was up to Randolph to object to the trial being set beyond the five-and-a-half year period.
In her opinion affirming the judgment, Boulware Eurie said the only issue is whether Code of Civil Procedure §583.330 applies. It says:
“The parties may extend the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article by the following means: [¶] …. [¶] (b) By oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.”
Agreement No Reflected
The justice wrote:
“Here, there is no transcript from the March 2024 case management conference, when the trial date was set beyond the mandatory statutory deadline; only the minute order from the case management conference is included in the record on appeal. The minute order merely shows that counsel for the parties were present at the case management conference and the trial court set the settlement conference, trial readiness conference, and jury trial dates. That is all. Nothing in the minute order indicates that there was an agreement to the trial date beyond the statutory deadline, as Randolph asserts.”
She added:
“We decline to create new law that when a minute order is silent as to any discussion relating to the trial date, a court may infer that a defendant expressly agreed to the new trial date, thereby entering into an oral stipulation under section 583.330, subdivision (b).”
The case is Randolph v. Trustees of the California State University, 2025 S.O.S. 164.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company