- within Compliance and Consumer Protection topic(s)
There is truth to the proverb that “a closed mouth catches no flies.” In Randolph v. Trustees of the California State University, 3rd App. Dist. C102901 (Jan. 15, 2026), the defendants sat silent when the trial court set a trial date after the five-year statutory deadline to bring a case to trial. Once the deadline passed, they successfully moved to dismiss. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that a non-objection to an untimely trial date does not constitute an express agreement to extend the deadline.
Facts and Procedural History
Randolph was an employment lawsuit filed in 2019. At a March 2024 conference, the trial court set a trial date of February 2025. However, the statutory deadline for trial was October 2024. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.310 (“An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.”).
After October 2024 passed, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to timely bring the case to trial. Dismissal is mandatory unless a statutory exception applies. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.360. One such exception is an “oral agreement made in open court.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.360(b).
Citing this exception, the plaintiff argued that the parties “verbally stipulated” to the February 2025 trial date at the March 2024 conference. The plaintiff relied on a minute order from the conference that notes the appearances of counsel and the case dates that were set. It contained no further information.
The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. It found that the scarce information in the minute order did not show that the defendants orally agreed to a trial date beyond the statutory deadline. It also criticized the plaintiff for not objecting to an untimely trial date.
The California Court of Appeal Holds That Mere Silence Does Not Amount to an “Oral Stipulation” to Extend the Statutory Deadline
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal. It held that courts may not infer that a defendant expressly agrees to a trial date merely because “a minute order is silent as to any discussion relating to the trial date.” (Emphasis in original.)
The sole question for appeal was whether the plaintiff established the “oral stipulation” exception to preclude mandatory dismissal. Under that exception, the parties may extend the statutory deadline to bring a case to trial by “oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.360(b).
As the Court of Appeal held, this exception was not met. Because there was no transcript from the March 2024 conference when the trial date was set, the only alternative source for the exception would be a minute order. However, the minute order did not indicate an “agreement” to a trial date beyond the statutory deadline. Instead, it merely shows that counsel appeared and the dates that were set.
The Court of Appeal distinguished Randolph from Nunn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 64 Cal. App. 5th 346 (2021), which applied the oral exception to extend the statutory deadline. Nunn involved a settled statement that contained detailed facts from a trial setting conference. As reflected in the settled statement, the trial court suggested a trial date within the five-year deadline, but the defendants said the proposed date was “too early” because they needed to depose the plaintiff and then file a dispositive motion. When the trial court proposed an alternative trial date after the deadline, both parties “had no objection.” The Court of Appeal held that an “oral agreement” was made, because the exchange between the trial court and the parties expressed “mutual consent” to extend the deadline to bring the case to trial, specifically to accommodate the defendants.
By contrast, the minute order in Randolph was starkly different. It contained no detail regarding conversations about the trial date and accordingly could not show any “mutual assent” to extend the statutory deadline to bring the case to trial. The Court rejected the argument that the defendants' non-objection to a trial date after the statutory deadline is sufficient to create an oral stipulation to extend the deadline. The Court reaffirmed that the exception requires that the oral stipulation be shown in a minute order or in a transcript, neither of which was present.
Impact of Randolph
Randolph shows that it is the obligation of plaintiffs – not defendants – to object to a trial date that falls beyond the statutory deadline to bring a case to trial. If a defendant sits silent when a date is set, that silence does not prevent them from later seeking to dismiss for failure to timely try the case.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
