In Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 717, the California Supreme Court considered whether Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340, subdivision (b) applies when a stay encompasses only some of an action's proceedings, or "partial stays." After reviewing the language of the statute and the legislative history, the court concluded only complete stays fall under section 583.340, subdivision (b). The court explained: "When the statute is read as a whole, it becomes apparent that subdivision (b) contemplates a bright-line, nondiscretionary rule that excludes from the time in which a plaintiff must bring a case to trial only that time during which all the proceedings in an action are stayed. ... Obviously, if a complete stay is in effect, bringing the action to trial is impossible. It makes sense for the Legislature to state a bright-line rule in this situation. The effect of a partial stay, however, can vary from stay to stay and from case to case. A partial stay might, or might not, make it 'impossible, impracticable, or futile' to bring the action to trial." (Bruns, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 726.) The court thus concluded section 583.340, subdivision (b) "governs only complete stays that are 'used to stop the prosecution of the action altogether.' " (51 Cal.4th at p. 730.) In Bruns, the California Supreme Court stated that under the abuse of discretion standard, the question of impossibility, impracticability, or futility is best resolved by the trial court, which " 'is in the most advantageous position to evaluate these diverse factual matters in the first instance.'" (Bruns, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 731.)