Fear Not Law Articles: Garza v,. Aguila

Garza v,

Garza v,. Aguila

Filed 1/23/07 Garza v,. Aguila CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JULIE GARZA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

ISMAEL AGUILA,

Defendant and Respondent.

B188902

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BD332994)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Ann Dobbs, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

California Legal Team and Okorie Okorocha for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________

Plaintiff and appellant, Julie Garza (wife), appeals the judgment entered granting her petition for dissolution of marriage to defendant and respondent, Ismael Aguila (husband), following denial of wife's motion to dismiss the case.

The essential issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied wife's motion to dismiss.

We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court's determination wife implicitly entered into an agreement with husband to waive the statutory five-year time limit within which a matter must be brought to trial. Accordingly, when wife brought a motion to dismiss the matter because trial began on a date beyond the five-year limitation period, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion.

Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.^{^[1]}

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 19, 2000, wife filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to husband, the respondent.

At proceedings held on July 13, 2005, the trial court and counsel for the parties, including counsel for the couple's two minor children, discussed some of the issues presented by the case and possible dates for a â€

Description	The essential issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied wife's motion to dismiss. Court conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court's determination wife implicitly entered into an agreement with husband to waive the statutory five-year time limit within which a matter must be brought to trial. Accordingly, when wife brought a motion to dismiss the matter because trial began on a date beyond the five-year limitation period, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.