California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

Verio Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court, 053068

In an underlying complaint arising out of a competing firm started by a former employees of plaintiff, alleging the individual defendants breached their contractual and fiduciary duties, and misappropriated trade secrets, and a cross-complaint alleging wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress, defendant's petition for a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to grant a nine month continuance of the entire litigation on the ground that defendants' attorney is a member of the California State Assembly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 595 and 1054.1, is denied where: 1) the court acted within its discretion by impliedly concluding the requested stay would 'abridge a right . . . to invoke a provisional remedy' (section 595), an express exception to the legislative directive making mandatory the granting of a continuance; and 2) although the 1968 amendment of sections 595 and 1054.1 purports to make a legislator-attorney's request for a continuance mandatory -- unless it would defeat or abridge a right to provisional relief -- the amendment did not cure the constitutional deficiency identified by the Thurmond v. Superior Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 836, court if applied literally as a mandatory directive to the trial courts in other circumstances, such as staying discovery.

Appellate Information

  • Decided
  • Published 2016/10/13




  • California Court of Appeal