|
p0456 When fast track court rules conflict with statutes, the statutes take precedence, so a court should have granted a party brought into a case shortly before the scheduled trial a continuance for the purpose of moving for summary judgment rather than shortening the time for the summary judgment hearing to be held, even though doing so would have resulted in a trial date beyond the two-year target set by fast track rules.CitationPOLIBRID v SUPERIOR COURT (Fast Track Continuance) 112 Cal.app.4th 920 [See: CRC 208(b); CCP 437c; Iverson v Superior Court 167 CA3 544; JohnsonStovall v Superior Court 17 Cal.app.4th 808, T/AT 10/93]
|
|
