 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martinez v. Jasperson1/28/2002
, you can present whatever argument and whatever testimony you have, then I'll make a decision on your case." Mr. Martinez responded: "I can't because I know I'm very sick. I got -." The Court replied: "Mr. Martinez - Mr. Martinez, you can have a seat. When I'm through with the calendar, I can call it. You can present whatever evidence you have. The trial will proceed this morning."
Appellate counsel seizes upon the foregoing colloquy to argue as follows: "When Martinez told the court he could not go forward because he was very sick he was told the case was going forward that morning. [ ] Since no further explanation is offered by the court in the record, it must be concluded that the reason Judge Smaltz refused to continue the trial date was to keep the case within the one-year completion goal of 'fast track.' Therefore she was balancing in favor of 'expeditious processing' rather than allowing Martinez to have his case heard on the merits which contradicts the intent of the Legislature."
Quite to the contrary, the record establishes that the trial court denied Mr. Martinez's multiple requests for continuance because he failed to establish good cause therefor. Counsel acknowledges that, on February 4, 2000, upon the filing of the substitution of attorney, Mr. Martinez had over four months in which to secure representation. He noticed a motion for a continuance, which was heard and denied on March 14, 2000. The only reason appearing in the record for Mr. Martinez's failure to retain counsel during that period was that no one wanted to take his case. Counsel argues that after the continuance was denied, Mr. Martinez was unable to retain counsel due to the fact that the trial court had refused to continue the trial date. However, there is no evidence in the record to support that assertion. Particularly telling is the absence of any evidence that Mr. Martinez sought representation from any lawyer who declined the employment due to insufficient time to prepare for trial.
Likewise, counsel's suggestion that the trial court was remiss for not advising Mr. Martinez that he could have an English-speaking friend or relative accompany him to court and informally interpret the proceedings for him is well off the mark. The transcripts of the hearings indicate that Mr. Martinez understood full well that he needed to retain counsel to prepare for his upcoming trial; that is why he noticed a motion for continuance. He also understood that the motion had been denied; that is why he renewed the motion on the date of trial. There is nothing in the record to support counsel's implication that Mr. Martinez lost his case because he did not understand the proceedings due his limited understanding of English.
Simply put, there is no rule of law that requires a court to continue a trial date until the plaintiff has retained counsel. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Martinez's requests for continuance. Because appellant has not based his appeal on any claim that the court erred in granting the motion for non-suit, and has not suggested how he might otherwise have prevailed had a continuance been granted, we need not, and do not, discuss the merits of the ruling granting non-suit.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
GRIGNON, Acting P.J.
MOSK, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|