Longhenry v. Pete Hill Construction Co. CA4/1

Filed 11/4/13 Longhenry v. Pete Hill Construction Co. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LONGHENRY, D061535

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00086807-CU-PO-CTL) PETE HILL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ronald S.

Prager, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael Longhenry, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Grimm, Vranjes & Greer, Eugene P. Kenny and Ryan R. Fick for Defendant and

Respondent.

In this negligence action, plaintiff Michael Longhenry appeals a judgment entered

after a jury verdict in favor of defendant Pete Hill Construction Company, Inc. (Hill).

Longhenry contends the trial court erred by: granting his attorney's request to be relieved

on the eve of trial; denying his new counsel's request to reopen discovery; granting Hill's

motions in limine; and denying Longhenry's request to make a "mini opening statement"

accompanied by presentation of demonstrative evidence.

"On appeal, we must presume the trial court's judgment is correct. (See Denham

v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 . . . .) In service of that rule, we adopt all