It is the policy of the state that a plaintiff shall proceed with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of an action but that all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial or other disposition. Except as otherwise provided by statute or by rule of court adopted pursuant to statute, the policy favoring the right of parties to make stipulations in their own interests and the policy favoring trial or other disposition of an action on the merits are generally to be preferred over the policy that requires dismissal for failure to proceed with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of an action in construing the provisions of this chapter.
§ 583.130.Policy of State
Title 8. Of the Trial and Judgment In Civil Actions · Chapter 1.5. Dismissal for Delay in Prosecution · Article 1. Definitions and General Provisions · Enacted 1705 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 28, 2026
In one sentenceSection 583.130 states California's policy that plaintiffs must prosecute actions with reasonable diligence and all parties must cooperate toward resolution, but that courts construing this chapter should generally prefer stipulations and disposition on the merits over dismissal for lack of diligence, except where a statute or rule provides otherwise.
Full Text of § 583.130
Plain-English Summary
This section sets the interpretive lens for the rest of Chapter 1.5. It states two policies at once: plaintiffs are expected to move their cases along with reasonable diligence, and every party is expected to cooperate in bringing the case to trial or other resolution.
But when it comes to construing the chapter's provisions, the section tells courts which policy to favor when the two might pull in different directions. The policy favoring parties' freedom to make stipulations in their own interest, and the policy favoring disposition of a case on the merits, are generally preferred over the policy that would require dismissal for lack of diligence — except where a statute or a rule of court adopted under a statute says otherwise.
That preference matters most for the discretionary dismissal provisions in § 583.410 and following, where courts weigh delay against a case's overall circumstances. It carries less weight against the mandatory, jurisdictional deadlines in §§ 583.210 and 583.310, which the chapter itself makes non-discretionary.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is California's general policy on prosecuting civil actions?
That plaintiffs proceed with reasonable diligence, and that all parties cooperate in bringing the action to trial or another disposition.
When interpreting this chapter, which policy does a court generally favor?
The policy favoring stipulations in the parties' own interests and the policy favoring disposition on the merits, over the policy requiring dismissal for lack of diligence — except where a statute or rule of court says otherwise.
Does this preference override the mandatory five-year and three-year deadlines?
No, those deadlines are made mandatory by their own terms; this policy statement chiefly guides how courts approach the chapter's more discretionary provisions.
Amendment History
Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1705, Sec. 5.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 28, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: california policy dismissal for delay in prosecutionreasonable diligence prosecution california civil action