Holmes v. Renzullo CA4/3

Filed 3/25/16 Holmes v. Renzullo CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SHAWN HOLMES,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G051312

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00487492)

DONNA RENZULLO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Randall J. Sherman, Judge. Affirmed. Legally Craig Bankruptcy Service, Craig Jago Beauchamp; Law Offices of Victor W. Luke and Victor W. Luke for Defendant and Appellant. Menke & Menke, Dennis V. Menke and James D. Menke for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Donna Renzullo appeals from a judgment on a breach of contract claim in favor of plaintiff Shawn Holmes following a bench trial. The sole question on appeal is whether, following six trial continuances, the trial court abused its discretion in denying her seventh request to continue trial after it had already commenced. The answer is no.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

According to the complaint, the parties had been friends for many years. In 2006 plaintiff agreed to purchase a residence and allow defendant to reside there in exchange for defendant paying all costs. Defendant took possession of the property but failed to make the payments or repay other loans made by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract and other causes of action. In 2010, defendant was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent many tests, surgeries, and radiation. Citing her illness, defendant obtained six continuances of the trial, whether by motion, application or stipulation. Trial was scheduled to begin on Monday, November 17, 2014. The Friday before, defendant filed an ex parte motion for another continuance because she was “recovering from [another] surgery and cannot adequately appear” for trial. She requested the “[t]rial be continued until early- to mid-February 2015.” The court denied the motion without prejudice. Defendant did not appear on the date set for trial. Her recently retained counsel informed the court defendant was “medically unavailable” because she had undergone a biopsy on Friday, November 14, and could not leave the house until the upcoming Friday at the earliest. Plaintiff’s counsel opposed another continuance because his client was “ready to proceed,” he had “been waiting patiently for three and a half years . . . to have [his] opportunity,” and the “trial date ha[d] been known for quite some