Court Opinion

ID: 9746280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:10:41.476668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:11.456293
License: Public Domain

*1401TURNER, P. J.
I respectfully dissent because: the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted a six-day continuance to allow defendant, one of the largest public entities in the nation, the opportunity to have its counsel, a large law firm which had chosen to set too many cases for trial, time to get ready to try the case (Gov. Code, § 68607; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 375 (amended Jan. 1, 2004); former Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin. § 9 (repealed Jan. 1, 2004); Estate of Meeker (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1105 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 825]); defendant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a more favorable result had the case been further delayed (Cal. Const, art. VI, § 13; People v. Sewell (1978) 20 Cal.3d 639, 646 [143 Cal.Rptr. 879, 574 P.2d 1231] [failure to show a reasonable probability of a different result when a continuance was denied in a triple murder case]); defendant’s inexcusable failure to even send a single lawyer to attend the trial forfeits all of their claims; and because defense counsel made the deliberate strategic decision not to appear at the trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for relief under any of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). (Yeap v. Leake (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 591, 602 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 680]; Ayala v. Southwest Leasing and Rental, Inc. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 40, 44 [8 Cal.Rptr.2d 637].)