California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Lockhart-Mummery v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 103 Cal.App.3d 891, 163 Cal.Rptr. 325 (Cal. App. 1980):
A precise contractual or judicial definition of "reasonable diligence," need not be delineated to perceive that appellant's claim should be barred because of his delay. While the reason for the one-year delay after the neutral arbitrator was finally appointed is unclear, appellant had the duty at all stages of the proceedings "to use due diligence to expedite his case. (Martin v. Cook (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 799, 808, 137 Cal.Rptr. 434.) Appellant cannot in any case contend that he is being deprived of his day in court because of the neutral arbitrator's failure to set up a hearing, when appellant has been solely responsible for a three-year delay before the appointment of the third arbitrator.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.