Colavincenzo

Colavincenzo v. Corby Gould Pools CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 24, 2014H039430California4,651 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

I. Background

The complaint was filed on March 27, 2007, and trial was originally set for October 25, 2010. A special master was appointed in 2008 to manage the litigation. In February 2009, a stipulated case management order stayed formal discovery “except for good cause demonstrated on application to the Special Master.” Colavincenzo’s repeated efforts to have the stay lifted were unsuccessful but in April 2010, the special master ordered defendants to undertake destructive testing and to provide certain other information. In September 2010, four defendants that have since settled moved to continue the trial on the ground that the stay of formal discovery made it “logistically impossible” to adequately prepare for trial. At the hearing before the Honorable Kay T. Kingsley, Colavincenzo asked for “the earliest date” the court could accommodate and suggested

they were judicially estopped from reversing the positions they took to obtain a continuance beyond the five-year deadline. Adams and Associated petitioned this court for a writ relief. (Associated Rebar et al. v. Monterey Superior Court (Colavincenzo et al.), H039407.) By separate order, we summarily deny their petition.

2…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.