## Facts

- Multiple plaintiffs filed related medical malpractice actions against Dr. Brian Clague in 1987, alleging negligent surgeries, lack of informed consent, and derivative claims.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel handled numerous similar cases against the same physician and chose to litigate another matter as a “lead case” to develop standard-of-care evidence for use across the related cases.
- Despite filing in 1987, Dr. Clague was not served in at least two actions until early 1990.
- Dr. Clague moved to dismiss for delay in prosecution under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.420(a)(1), citing failure to serve within two years.
- Plaintiffs opposed, asserting the delay resulted from a deliberate, case-management strategy rather than abandonment or neglect.
- The trial court granted dismissal for delay in prosecution; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the actions for delay in prosecution under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.420 when plaintiffs offered a credible, not-clearly-unreasonable tactical excuse and defendant showed no prejudice.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissals.
- The court held that a credible excuse based on counsel’s decisions that are not clearly unreasonable generally defeats discretionary dismissal absent defendant prejudice or other circumstances showing dismissal best serves the interests of justice.
- The court concluded plaintiffs’ lead-case strategy was a sufficient excuse and Dr. Clague failed to show prejudice or other factors warranting dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Discretionary dismissal for delay in prosecution must be exercised to further fair administration of justice and is not automatic upon delay.
- A plaintiff’s showing of a credible excuse grounded in attorney case-management decisions can justify delay when those decisions are not clearly unreasonable.
- When a credible, reasonable excuse is shown, dismissal should not be ordered unless:
  - the defendant demonstrates prejudice caused by the delay, or
  - other circumstances show the interests of justice favor dismissal.
- Dismissal for delay is a harsh remedy and should be reserved for situations where equities favor termination over resolution on the merits.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that discretionary delay dismissals are improper where plaintiffs present a credible, reasonable explanation based on litigation strategy and the defendant fails to show prejudice or other justice-based reasons for termination, and it reversed the trial court’s dismissal orders.


Putnam v. Clague, 3 Cal. App. 4th 542, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 25 (Ct. App. 1992)