Alexander v. Superior Court CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Oct 29, 2013 No. E059410Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court abused its discretion by denying a brief continuance to a party whose previous counsel had abandoned them, thereby preventing the party from providing compliant discovery responses to avoid the sanction of deemed admissions.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance to allow new counsel to provide responses to requests for admissions.
Whether the trial court erred in granting a motion for deemed admissions under the circumstances of attorney abandonment.

Disposition. Petition granted; peremptory writ of mandate issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In our view the denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion.”

“a brief continuance should have been granted to afford petitioner a meaningful opportunity to avoid the drastic consequences of deemed admissions.”

Filed 10/29/13 Alexander v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

VARDAY ALEXANDER, as Trustee, etc.,

Petitioner, E059410

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1109153)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Matthew C.

Perantoni, Judge. Petition granted.

Robinson-Legal and Raymond G. Robinson for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Katten Muchin Rosenman, Stuart M. Richter, Gregory S. Korman and Austin T.

Beardsley for Real Parties in Interest.

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real

parties in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the

application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first

instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36

Cal.3d 171, 178.)

Alexander v. Superior Court CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

KING J.

AI Brief