Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Judge Didn’t Abuse His Discretion in Ordering Civil Trial to Commence Despite Pandemic
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal on Friday denied a writ that was sought by Wells Fargo and other defendants to a delay in a civil trial rather than holding proceedings during the pandemic.
A writ was summarily denied by Div. One on Oct. 23, 2020; trial commenced in San Diego Superior Court on Oct. 26; that same day, the California Supreme Court issued a stay; on Nov. 6, it granted review and bounced the case back to Div. One, instructing that it issue an order to show cause why relief should not be granted.
Justice Terry B. O’Rourke wrote Friday’s opinion, which was not certified for publication. He said that Judge Joel R. Wohlfeil did not abuse his discretion in denying a six-month continuance, noting various precautions he took, such as limiting the number of persons in the courtroom, with those who were barred being able to view proceedings via closed circuit television.
Wells Fargo argued that trial should be delayed to a time when participants would not have their health put in jeopardy and when some of the parties would not have to be excluded from the courtroom. O’Rourke wrote:
“Although the parties indisputably have an interest in being physically present in the courtroom, the extraordinary circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic warrant the physical exclusion of some parties from the courtroom while maintaining the ability to watch the proceedings via a live video feed. The court balanced the competing interests by allowing party representatives to be present in the courtroom with additional parties participating remotely. Despite Petitioners’ claim to the contrary, the trial court did not exclude some parties from the courtroom as a matter of ‘expediency,’ but rather to protect the health of all involved.”
He continued:
“Petitioners cannot inconsistently claim that the trial court had no reason to exclude some parties from the courtroom while at the same time asserting that the court must comply with health guidance recommending social distancing and limited gatherings. Given the difficult circumstances, the trial court balanced the competing interests and protected the parties’ interest in viewing the proceedings to the greatest extent possible. Although Petitioners believe that these competing interests could be protected by a continuance, we have…already concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a continuance.”
O’Rourke announced that the opinion will be final in 10 days. However, there is then a 30-day period for seeking review in the Supreme Court—meaning that Wells Fargo will wind up receiving the continuance to April that it sought.
However, O’Rourke’s opinion does not require that the trial resume in April, should the Supreme Court not grant review. Rather, the jurist said the circumstances must be gaged upon remand, explaining:
“[T]the situation may have worsened, making any trial inadvisable. Conversely, it is equally possible that the widespread vaccination of the population will have significantly lessened the public health concerns relied upon by Petitioners. In either scenario, it would be improper for this court to attempt to determine whether a future trial date should be continued for good cause. Any such determination must be presented to the trial court in the first instance.”
He went on to say:
“Included in the requests for judicial notice was an advisory issued by Chief Justice [Tani] Cantil-Sakauye on December 7, 2020. In that advisory, the Chief Justice notes that ‘our courts are exempt from closure,’ recognizes that statewide orders would be ‘inappropriate and would impair the flexibility trial and appellate courts need to respond to local conditions and access to justice,’ and reaffirms the ability of courts to ‘assess their circumstances and ability to operate under their local constraints.’…Following the lead of our Chief Justice, we will not interfere with the trial court’s discretion to ‘continue to balance constitutional and statutory rights with the safety and health of all court users, employees, jurors, justice partners, and judicial officers.’ ”
The case is Wells Fargo Bank, National Assn. v. Superior Court, D078087.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company