Hernandez

If plaintiff’s counsel’s serious physical illness and its debilitating effects culminating in death during the final stages of litigation are not good cause for continuing a trial and reopening of discovery, there is no such thing as good cause. A plaintiff in a personal injury action is not chargeable with the continued good health of his or her attorney. Forcing such a plaintiff to trial without counsel or adequately prepared counsel is not likely to ensure fairness, the overall policy of the law. (Gardiner Solder, Co. v. SupAlloy Corp., Inc.(1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1537, 1543 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 206 ].)

The Court of Appeal does not and should not micromanage law and motion rulings. Absent extraordinary circumstances, most writ applications seeking review of discretionary rulings are easily denied because of traditional appellate rules. (E.g., Estate of Gilkison (1997) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 463 ], see post, p. 1246.) However, some writ applications are more “writ worthy” than others. As we shall explain, absent our intervention here, petitioner would face the probability of trial without counsel or adequately prepared counsel in a serious personal injury…