In Santiago v. D & G Plumbing, Inc. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 365, there was a 318-day period in which it was impracticable to bring the case to trial, due to court congestion. (Id. at pp. 369, 373.) This period ended, however, about six months before the end of the five years. (Id. at pp. 368-370.) The plaintiff (Star) did not file a motion to specially set or do anything else to prevent the trial from being set beyond the five-year mark. (Id. at pp. 369-370.) The Court held that the trial court properly dismissed the case because Star did not show that it exercised reasonable diligence during the final six months. (De Santiago, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 374.) ". . . Star had a duty to bring to the trial court's attention the fact that the trial court set the trial for a date after expiration of the five-year period and object. . . .Star also had a duty to take whatever other measures were available to attempt to accelerate trial of the case before expiration of the five-year period, including bringing a motion to advance the trial. Even after the court set the case for trial beyond the five-year mark, there was ample time to move to advance the trial date pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1335." (Ibid.)