Russell v. Walsh CA1/4

Filed 9/15/23 Russell v. Walsh CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

STEPHEN RUSSELL,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A165356 v. (City & County of San Francisco TARA WALSH, Super. Ct. No. CGC-18-570137) Defendant and Appellant.

Stephen Russell sued Tara Walsh for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and domestic violence (Civ. Code, § 1708.6, subd. (a)), and a jury found her liable for all three torts. Walsh, who represented herself at trial and does so again on appeal, argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. She also contends that the trial court erred in declining to continue the trial when she told the court about her mental health issues. Finding none of these arguments persuasive, we affirm the judgment. The parties are familiar with the facts and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We confine our discussion to the information that is relevant to our conclusions and to our statement of the reasons that have led us to them. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1262.)

DISCUSSION

1. The Trial Court Acted Within Its Discretion in Electing Not to Continue the Trial

Walsh argues that the trial court “erred in refusing to continue the trial when . . . Walsh expressed that she was having mental health issues.” We disagree. “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) “A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for a continuance. [Citation]. It is the duty of the trial court to vigorously insist upon cases being heard and decided in the most timely manner possible, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.” (Midwest Television, Inc. v. Scott, Lancaster, Mills & Atha, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 442, 456.) “Unnecessary continuances are wasteful, nonproductive, time-consuming and a fertile ground for criticism by the public of the courts.” (County of San Bernardino v. Doria Mining & Engineering Corp. (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 776, 781.) “A trial court has great discretion in the disposition of an application for a continuance. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court’s determination will not be disturbed.” (Estate of Smith (1973) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.) According to Walsh, there was good cause to continue her trial because she told the court that she was “not mentally fit to go through the trial” and offered to “obtain[] a letter from her psychiatrist” to the same effect. However, when Walsh first made the request for a continuance, the jury had been sworn and she had just delivered an opening statement in propria persona. Having observed that opening statement, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Walsh was able to proceed despite any difficulties.