Check out the facts in this one. Which seem like a huge procedural clusterfart (pardon my French):
"In a prior action, Neil Gieleghem and respondent Gregory
Cole, both attorneys, obtained a $500,000 judgment against
Anthony Sheen, a landlord, based on unpaid fees for legal
services they rendered to Sheen. In satisfaction of that
judgment, Cole and Gieleghem obtained an assignment of rent
from Sheen for a residential property.
Appellants Betty and Ruth Hammond (the Hammonds)
were Sheen’s tenants. Cole and Gieleghem demanded that the
Hammonds pay their rent directly to them pursuant to the
assignment. The Hammonds refused, and Cole sued, alleging
breach of contract and related claims. Gieleghem appeared as
Cole’s attorney in the lawsuit.
A few months after the initiation of the lawsuit in 2011, the
Hammonds began paying their rent to Cole and Gieleghem.
After the parties conducted some initial discovery, the case
languished for several years. In January 2018, the Hammonds
moved for mandatory dismissal of the action for failure to bring
the case to trial within five years, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 583.360. A mandatory dismissal would be
considered a determination on the merits entitling the prevailing
party to attorney fees under Civil Code, section 1717. However,
at the hearing on the motion, Cole sought to voluntarily dismiss
the case without prejudice pursuant to section 581, subdivision
(b)(1). The court granted Cole’s oral motion and dismissed the
case. The court subsequently denied the Hammonds’ motion to
vacate the dismissal. This appeal followed.
The parties dispute whether this appeal is timely. We
conclude that it is. Substantively, the Hammonds contend the
trial court erred in granting Cole’s motion for voluntary
dismissal, arguing that they had the right to a mandatory
dismissal and the resulting attorney fees. We agree and
therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings."
The lesson is: If you're going to sue, sue.
