From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Havard v. Superior Court (David Houston)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jun 10, 2009
No. E048193 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Gloria Trask, Judge. Super Ct. No. RIC36907

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, J. Timothy Hegness; Varner & Brandt and Kristen R. Olsen for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Parties in Interest.


OPINION

HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and supporting materials, and have offered real parties in interest and respondent the opportunity to respond.

We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

While a request for continuance normally rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Schroeder v. Irvine City Council (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 174), in this case, we find that the trial court’s refusal did constitute an abuse of discretion. Both the death of a party and the parties’ joint request are factors favoring a grant of the continuance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(2), (d)(9).) The record does not reflect the clear application of any factor justifying denial. (But see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)(7).) Here, both sides agreed that the sudden death of defendant Don R. Havard changed the complexion of the case and would also require the substitution of his estate or personal representative in order to try all issues at one time. The trial court should have granted the request for a continuance.

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order denying the request for continuance, and to enter a new order granting said motion.

The previously ordered stay is dissolved.

Petitioners are directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.

No opposition having been received to the petition, this order shall be final forthwith. Petitioners shall bear their own costs.

We concur: McKINSTER J. MILLER J.


Summaries of

Havard v. Superior Court (David Houston)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jun 10, 2009
No. E048193 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2009)
Case details for

Havard v. Superior Court (David Houston)

Case Details

Full title:DON R. HAVARD et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Jun 10, 2009

Citations

No. E048193 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2009)