Tliche v. Van Quathem

66 Cal. App. 4th 1054, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 458 (1998)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Tliche v. Van Quathem

California Court of Appeal
66 Cal. App. 4th 1054, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 458 (1998)

Facts

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.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Aldrich, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership