Lynn Behrens Zimmerman vs Bill Hollings et al

Case Number

18CV01746

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 12/12/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Dismiss

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Lynn Behrens Zimmerman, individually and as executor of the Estate of Clarke Paxton, filed the original complaint in this action on April 6, 2018. Defendants RGC Services, Inc., dba Re/Max Gold Coast, and Bill Holling (collectively, Broker Defendants) were served on July 3, 2018.

On December 14, 2018, defendants RGC Services, Inc., dba Re/Max Gold Coast, and Bill Holling (collectively, Broker Defendants) filed a notice of appeal of the court’s denial of their anti-SLAPP motion, staying this action. The remittitur from the Court of Appeal was filed on December 3, 2020, returning jurisdiction to this court. The matter has not been brought to trial and no trial date is now pending.

“An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.) “In computing the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: [¶] (a) The jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended. [¶] (b) Prosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined. [¶] (c) Bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.340.) “An action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of the defendant, after notice to the parties, if the action is not brought to trial within the time prescribed in this article.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.360, subd. (a).) “The requirements of this article are mandatory and are not subject to extension, excuse, or exception except as expressly provided by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.360, subd. (b).)

As of the date of this hearing on December 12, 2025, five years and five days have elapsed since the filing of the remittitur. Between the filing of the complaint on April 6, 2018, and the filing of the notice of appeal, there were an additional 252 days (i.e., eight months and eight days by the calendar), for a total elapsed time of five years and 257 days (i.e., five years, eight months, 13 days by the calendar).

Plaintiff has not filed opposition to this motion and hence has not met her burden to show any statutory exception to the five-year rule. (See Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 717, 731.) The motion to dismiss is granted.