 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edenbaum v. Dalton11/6/2002
Edenbaum's counsel in support of his request for a continuance did not satisfy these requirements with respect to Dalton. His declaration points out how further deposition testimony from Edenbaum's former clients unbridled by assertions of the attorney-client privilege may have produced evidence to defeat Kay's summary judgment motion. But such proposed testimony would not have affected the merits of Dalton's summary judgment motion. As to witnesses Falkenstein and Davis, they obviously were pertinent to Dalton's summary judgment motion, but the referee's recommendations did not encompass the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to their depositions because they were never Edenbaum's clients. Thus, Edenbaum has not demonstrated " 'facts essential to justify opposition may exist' " (Roth v. Rhodes, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 548) to support his second continuance request.
The trial court had already granted one motion for a continuance. There was no error in denying the second continuance motion under these circumstances.
III. Denial of Reconsideration Motion
Edenbaum contends the court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motion for summary judgment. The contention is without merit.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 authorizes a motion to reconsider a matter and modify, amend or revoke a prior order based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law. A trial court's ruling on a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.)
Here, Edenbaum presented no new or different facts, circumstances or law to support the reconsideration motion. The court properly denied the reconsideration motion on July 19, 2000.
Also on that date, the court effectively overruled its prior April 28 order sustaining Dalton's objections to the discovery referee's report. On appeal, Edenbaum claims the trial court's reversal on the discovery issue constitutes a change in circumstances that would justify the granting of his motion for reconsideration. We disagree. As discussed in part II, ante, the referee's report and recommendations concerned witnesses who had a bearing on Kay's summary judgment/summary adjudication motion, not on Dalton's motion. There was no change in circumstances that would justify Edenbaum's motion for reconsideration with respect to Dalton. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Dalton is to recover costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|