A former California State University employee has lost her bid to revive a discrimination and whistleblower lawsuit after a state appeals court ruled that a defendant’s silence in the courtroom does not count as an agreement to extend legal deadlines.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of Randolph v. Trustees of the California State University, putting a permanent end to litigation that began nearly seven years ago.
The ruling highlights a strict “use it or lose it” reality in California civil courts: if a plaintiff fails to bring their case to trial within five years (plus specific extensions), the case must be dismissed.
READ: Florida Supreme Court Ends ABA’s Monopoly On Law School Accreditation
The Ticking Clock
Teresa Randolph originally filed suit in April 2019, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation against her former employer, Chico State. Under normal statutory rules and emergency COVID-19 extensions, Randolph had until Oct. 19, 2024, to get her case in front of a jury.
However, during a status conference in March 2024, the trial court scheduled the trial for Feb. 3, 2025—roughly four months past the legal deadline.
Defense attorneys for the university were present at that hearing and did not object to the late date. Seven months later, however, those same attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the entire case, arguing Randolph had violated the statutory time limit.
The Sound of Silence
Randolph’s legal team argued that the dismissal was unfair. They contended that because the university’s lawyers didn’t object when the judge read the February 2025 date aloud, they had effectively entered into an “oral stipulation,” or agreement, to extend the deadline.
READ: Kremlin Trap? Navy Vet Slapped With 5-Year Sentence As Family Fears He’s The Latest Political Pawn
The appellate panel disagreed.
Justice Boulware Eurie, writing for the court, clarified that for an oral agreement to be valid in this context, it must be explicit and recorded in the court minutes or a transcript.
In this case, no transcript of the hearing existed. The court’s minute order listed only the dates and the attorneys’ attendance. It contained no record of a discussion, an agreement, or a waiver of the deadline.
“The minute order merely shows that counsel for the parties were present… That is all,” the court wrote. “Nothing in the minute order indicates that there was an agreement to the trial date.”
Distinguishing the Precedent
Randolph’s appeal relied heavily on a previous case, Nunn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, where a silence-as-agreement argument had worked. But the appellate court noted a critical difference: in Nunn, there was a detailed record showing the attorneys actively discussing dates and affirmatively accepting a delay to accommodate their own schedules.
READ: Hyperbole On The Hill: Arizona Dem Says US Border Enforcement Is ‘Identical’ To Iran’s Brutal Regime
Here, the record was blank.
“We decline to create new law that when a minute order is silent… a court may infer that a defendant expressly agreed,” the opinion stated.
The court emphasized that the burden remains on the plaintiff to ensure their case is tracked for trial before the clock runs out. A defendant’s failure to object to a court error does not relieve the plaintiff of that duty.
With the dismissal affirmed, the defendants were awarded their costs for the appeal.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
