Maynard v. Bullis
| Decision Date | 11 October 1950 |
| Citation | 222 P.2d 685,99 Cal.App.2d 805 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MAYNARD v. BULLIS. Civ. 17936. |
George Goldman, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Fulcher & Wynn, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Plaintiff has appealed from an order dismissing the action and from an order denying his motion to reconsider and vacate the order of dismissal. He has purportedly appealed from an order denying his motion for a continuance of the trial. 1
The complaint in the action was filed on February 11, 1949, and defendant's answer thereto was filed on March 3. The case was set for trial on February 8, 1950. On October 26, 1949, the motion of plaintiff's counsel for leave to withdraw from the case, for the reason that differences had arisen between plaintiff and his counsel relative to the conduct and prosecution of the action, was granted and thereafter plaintiff appeared in propria persona. On December 2, 1949, notice of trial was served upon plaintiff. Shortly thereafter a representative of defendant's counsel called at plaintiff's residence and personally advised him of the date on which the case had been set for trial and inquired whether he would be ready for trial at that time. Plaintiff's answer was both profane and noncommittal. On February 7, 1950, the day immediately preceding the trial date, plaintiff's present attorney, Mr. Goldman, telephoned to defendant's counsel and requested a continuance of the trial in order that he might have time to make preparations therefor. His request was refused.
When the case was called for trial Mr. Goldman stated to the court that plaintiff was personally present in the courtroom and that he, Goldman, held a document executed by plaintiff appointing Goldman as plaintiff's attorney but he did not intend to file it unless a continuance of the trial could be had. The court stated that no sufficient showing of grounds for continuance had been made and denied the same. Upon motion of defendant's attorney an order was made dismissing the action.
Thereafter a substitution of Mr. Goldman as attorney of record for plaintiff was served and filed together with a notice of motion to reconsider and vacate the order of dismissal, pursuant to section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The affidavits accompanying the notice of motion do not make any showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Plaintiff states in his affidavit that after the date on which his former counsel withdrew from the case he consulted numerous attorneys and law firms in regard to the case (in his brief he names eight different attorneys) 'but that each of them refused to represent him therein.' The other affidavits do not purport to set forth any reason for a continuance of the trial or for the vacation of the order of dismissal.
The granting or refusing of a continuance of a trial is a matter within the sound discretion of the court and if not unreasonable or arbitrary it will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hufft v. Horowitz
...and the subsequent order denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration. Neither order is appealable. (Maynard v. Bullis (1950), 99 Cal.App.2d 805, 807, 222 P.2d 685; Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602, 1607, fn. 5, 275 Cal.Rptr. 887.) Moreover, in light of our disposit......
-
County of Sacramento v. Sprague, C053483 (Cal. App. 6/24/2008)
...the court nor the County was required to wait further while Sprague sought counsel to represent him at trial. (See Maynard v. Bullis (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 805, 807 [plaintiff was not entitled to continuance for new attorney to prepare for trial, where he had two months to retain new counsel,......
-
In Re The Marriage Of Bradley N. Mells And Lorie D. Mells.
...the full administrative record....' " (Foster v. Civil Service Com., supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at pp. 448-449; see also Maynardv. Bullis (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 805, 807 [no good cause to continue the trial where the plaintiff's attorney withdrew three months before trial and the plaintiff had dif......
-
Vann v. Shilleh
...before us the attorney sought to withdraw, and it does not appear that the litigant wanted to change his counsel. In Maynard v. Bullis (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 805, 222 P.2d 685, the attorney withdrew from trial months before the trial date, and even though plaintiff consulted eight attorneys w......