Court Opinion

ID: 9759906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:32:18.760076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:06.039396
License: Public Domain

Concurring statement of
SAYLOR, Judge:
I join in the majority’s Opinion. I believe, as does Judge Johnson, that a busy trial court must have the ability to supervise its own calendar free of the disruptions caused by counsel’s absence from the status call of the list. I question, however, whether setting a trial date in counsel’s absence provides a sufficient sanction in all instances for counsel’s failure to appear at a status call. In addition to establishing a trial date, the status call serves several functions. Presumably, it enables the court to ascertain the true readiness of the parties for trial, to determine the expected duration of the trial and therefore reserve sufficient time on the court’s calendar, and to address any special scheduling problems such as those involving witnesses. Thus, I believe that the trial court must have the ability and authority to impose whatever sanctions it deems appropriate, short of a non pros, for the failure to appear at the call of the list.
CIRILLO, J., joins this concurring statement.