|
1849 REVIEW DENIED In a case in which the court did not notify the parties until after the trial date had been changed on the court's own motion and in which the court was under misapprehensions about the number of continuances granted at the request of plaintiff, about the date originally set for trial, and about the validity of plaintiff's reason for being unavailable, it was an abuse of discretion for the court to invite and grant a motion to dismiss for plaintiff's failure to appear.CitationLINK v CATER (Failure to Prosecute) 60 CA4 1315 [See: CCP 581(1); Ohmer v Superior Court 148 CA3 661; Wantuch v Davis 32 CA4 786, T/AT 3/95]
|
|
