Hershman v. Bernard Homes, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Superior Court

    65 Cal.App.3d 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 18 times
    In Travelers Ins. Co. v. Superior Court,supra, 65 Cal.App.3d 751, the trial court erroneously refused the defendant's request that it resolve class issues before the merits.

    The trial court has wide discretion and its decision will not be disturbed by an appellate court absent a manifest abuse of discretion. ( Hershman v. Bernard Homes, Inc. (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 651 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 817].) The discretion is vested in the trial court, not in the appellate court.

  2. Fishback v. Cnty. of Ventura

    2d Civ. No. B292947 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2020)

    The Fishbacks had the independent duty to diligently prosecute their section 1983 cases, which could be dismissed for failure of prosecution regardless of what happened in the County's case against them. (Wilson, McCall & Daoro v. American Qualified Plans, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1036 [a cross-complaint is "an independent cause of action"]; see also Perez v. Grajales (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 580, 594-596; Minasian v. Sapse (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 823, 825; Hershman v. Bernard Homes, Inc. (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 651, 655.) Mr. Fishback declared that the Court of Appeal "dismissed [his] appeal and sent it back down to the Superior Court for further proceedings."

  3. Sanders v. Fuller

    45 Cal.App.3d 994 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 7 times

    If it was "impossible or impracticable" to bring Gary Sanders into the action, it then became the duty of cross-complainants to make such a showing to the trial court, and endeavor to bring the action to trial without him within the statutory period. As said in Hershman v. Bernard Homes, Inc., 1 Cal.App.3d 651, 655: "It is settled law that the responsibility of diligent prosecution at every stage of the proceeding is on the plaintiff — in this case, the cross-complainant." VI. The record before us suggests at least some lack of diligence of cross-complainants in trying to serve Gary Sanders with summons.

  4. Southern California Edison Co. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County

    5 Cal.App.3d 829 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)

    (Paul W. Speer, Inc. v. Superior Court, 272 Cal.App.2d 32, 36, 77 Cal.Rptr. 152; City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 271 Cal.App.2d 292, 295, 76 Cal.Rptr. 256; Market-Front Co. v. Superior Court, supra, at pp. 507-508, 76 Cal.Rptr. 526; Black Bros. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 265 Cal.App.2d at p. 510, 71 Cal.Rptr. 344. ) Recent cases applying this rule: Price v. Grayson, 276 A.C.A. 79, 80 Cal.Rptr. 602; Rodde v. Trousdale Constr. Co., 276 A.C.A. 507, 80 Cal.Rptr. 774; Monroy v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 276 A.C.A. 581, 81 Cal.Rptr. 130; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, 276 A.C.A. 921, 81 Cal.Rptr. 705; Hershman v. Bernard Homes, Inc., 1 Cal.App.3d 651, 81 Cal.Rptr. 817; Bolsinger v. Marr, 1 Cal.App.3d 267, 81 Cal.Rptr. 498; Carnation Company v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.App.3d 891; Raynolds v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 275 A.C.A. 1126, 80 Cal.Rptr. 610. It is well established that the duty rests upon a plaintiff 'at every stage of the proceedings to use diligence to expedite his case to a final determination.' (Emphasis added.)