## Facts

- Dana Bruns filed a putative class action in California state court alleging unlawful fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
- The litigation extended for more than six years and included multiple court orders imposing both complete stays of all proceedings and partial stays (including discovery stays) while other aspects could proceed.
- In 2006, defendants moved to dismiss under California’s mandatory five-year rule, arguing the case had not been brought to trial within five years of commencement.
- Bruns opposed dismissal, contending time should be excluded from the five-year computation due to stays and other circumstances under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.340(b) and (c).
- The trial court requested detailed briefing on litigation activity during claimed exclusion periods and dismissed the action for failure to bring it to trial within five years.

## Issues

1. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.340(b), does the exclusion for time during which “[p]rosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined” apply only to stays of all proceedings, or also to partial stays (such as discovery stays)?
2. Under § 583.340(c), what governs exclusion of time when bringing the action to trial was “impossible, impracticable, or futile,” and what is the appellate standard of review for such determinations?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of § 583.340(b).
- The Court held that § 583.340(b) excludes time only when a stay halts all proceedings in the action; partial stays do not automatically toll the five-year period.
- The Court held that delays associated with partial stays may be excluded, if at all, under § 583.340(c) upon a fact-dependent showing that timely trial was impossible, impracticable, or futile despite diligence.
- The Court directed that § 583.340(c) determinations are discretionary and reviewed on appeal under substantial-evidence/abuse-of-discretion principles.
- The matter was remanded for reconsideration of dismissal using the correct framework: automatic exclusion only for complete stays under (b), and any additional exclusions evaluated under (c).

## Legal Principles

- Dismissal is mandatory if an action is not brought to trial within five years after commencement, absent a statutory basis to exclude time from the computation. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 583.310, 583.360.)
- Under § 583.340(b), “prosecution … was stayed or enjoined” means a stay that encompasses all proceedings in the action; partial stays (including discovery stays) do not automatically stop the five-year clock.
- Section 583.340(c) permits exclusion of time when timely trial was impossible, impracticable, or futile due to circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control, evaluated through a fact-intensive inquiry that considers diligence and the causes and effects of delay.
- Appellate review differs by subdivision: § 583.340(b) presents a largely legal, mechanical question, while § 583.340(c) involves discretionary trial-court determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion and supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court limited the automatic tolling provision in § 583.340(b) to complete stays of all proceedings and required plaintiffs seeking additional exclusions to prove, under § 583.340(c), that diligent prosecution could not reasonably bring the case to trial within five years; the case was remanded for application of this framework.


Bruns v. E-Commerce Exch., Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 717 (Cal. 2011)