Burton v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. CA2/2

Filed 10/30/24 Burton v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

RAMONA BURTON, B324426

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC694770) v.

LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anthony J. Mohr and Maurice A. Leiter, Judges. Affirmed. Michael S. Traylor for Plaintiff and Appellant. McCune & Harber, Dana John McCune and David M. Gillen for Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant and plaintiff Ramona Burton appeals the dismissal of her employment discrimination lawsuit against respondents Long Beach Unified School District and individual defendants. Appellant challenges the dismissal that was prompted by appellant not being ready to proceed on the day of trial. Given appellant’s repeated delays and lack of unpreparedness, there was no abuse of discretion. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Initial filing and default On February 21, 2018, appellant filed a complaint against respondents alleging various employment-related claims. Respondents served their answer, though due to mistake failed to file their answer. On July 9, 2019, appellant obtained entries of default against all respondents, claiming a failure to have filed an answer to the first amended complaint. Discovery and sanctions While in default, respondents sought to depose appellant. When appellant did not appear for the deposition, respondents filed a motion for evidentiary sanctions, which was heard and granted on September 26, 2019. Respondents subsequently obtained relief from the default on October 30, 2019. Trial setting and continuances The case was initially set for trial on March 21, 2022, and continued to March 24, 2022, and then June 27, 2022. As the parties were attempting to settle the case, the trial date was continued several more times, ultimately to September 19, 2022. Trial proceedings and dismissal When called for trial on September 19, 2022, appellant did not appear. The court continued the trial to September 21, 2022,