Tliche v. Van Quathem

The California Trial Court Delay Reduction Act promulgated state-wide case disposition standards that permitted trial courts to adopt local fast-track rules to implement the act and to impose sanctions, including dismissal, for noncompliance with those rules. However, state procedural rules did not allow for dismissal of an action if the failure to comply with a state rule was the responsibility of counsel and not the party. On December 21, 1995, Samy Tliche filed a state-court complaint against Carl Van Quathem and other defendants for various claims arising out of Tliche’s lease of certain premises from the defendants. Tliche made 19 or more unsuccessful attempts to serve defendants through early February 1996. On August 22, 1996, citing Superior Court of Los Angeles Local Rule 7.7, one of the fast-track rules promulgated under the act that permits dismissal for failure to serve the complaint within 60 days of its filing, state civil procedure rules, and a state statute that permit dismissal for failure to meet state disposition standards requiring service within two years, the trial court ordered Tliche to show cause for failure to prosecute the case. When Tliche’s counsel failed to appear at a September 23, 1996 hearing on the order, the trial court dismissed the case without citing any local rule or state-code provision for authority. Tliche effected substituted service by early October, but not before the trial court, citing local rule 7.7, denied his motion to vacate the dismissal. Tliche appealed.