Vulich v. Vulich CA5

Filed 7/9/25 Vulich v. Vulich CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SHARON VULICH, Individually and as Successor Trustee, etc., et al., F088070

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 20CECG03175)

v. OPINION NORMAN VULICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. D. Tyler Tharpe, Judge. Daniel L. Harralson Law Office, Daniel L. Harralson for Defendant and Appellant. Miles, Sears & Eanni, Lyndsie N. Russell for Plaintiffs and Respondents. -ooOoo- Norman Vulich shot and killed his brother Jerry Vulich. Jerry’s survivors sued Norman and prevailed in a jury trial. Norman appeals arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying motions to continue the trial. We affirm.

BACKGROUND One day on the family farm, Norman shot and killed his brother Jerry. Law enforcement promptly arrested Norman. The Fresno County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Norman.1 Meanwhile, Jerry’s survivors sued Norman in this civil case for wrongful death. The matter proceeded to trial nearly three years later.2 In the interim, Norman was represented by three separate counsel. Norman’s second counsel took over the case in May 2022. About one year later, that counsel moved to withdraw citing an “ill[ness]” and inability “to practice law.” Norman’s third and final trial counsel substituted in in July 2023.3 New counsel quickly moved to continue the trial scheduled to begin on August 7, 2023. Counsel also sought to reopen discovery. Jerry’s survivors opposed, specifically claiming “there [was] no good cause for a continuance or the reopening of discovery.” The trial court granted the continuance, setting a trial date of March 4, 2024. The request to reopen discovery was denied without prejudice.4 At the end of February 2024, Norman’s trial counsel moved to stay or continue the upcoming trial. Counsel claimed he began to doubt Norman’s cognitive ability in late December, about two months earlier. Counsel noted he was “awaiting receipt of an opinion from a medical professional” regarding Norman’s “mental capacity.” He also cited an inability for Norman “to testify due to the pending criminal case which will force