KINGFISH ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC ET AL v. RADINE BULTMAN (2023)

In light of the great discretion afforded to the trial court in whether to grant or deny a continuance, I would deny this application. See State v. Dye, 384 So. 2d 420 (La. 5/19/80) (“[T]he trial court has great discretion when deciding whether to grant a continuance, and its decision not to grant a continuance should not be disturbed unless there was arbitrary and unreasonable abuse of discretion.”) (internal citations omitted). In my view, while I am not insensitive to the noted medical issues, given the nearly six years this matter has been pending and counsel's choice of an already unavailable substitute attorney, I cannot say the trial court abused her discretion in denying this continuance under these circumstances. I therefore dissent.

CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons: