- 6 - at trial due to a disability. The Court did not grant petitioner’s request for a continuance. The Court indicated that the case would be called at the calendar call and that the Court expected petitioner to appear. When the case was called at the calendar call, petitioner did not appear. Counsel for respondent appeared and reported that petitioner was seen by a third party in the Tampa, Florida, area the Friday before the Monday calendar call. The Court set the case for recall at a date later in the calendar. Petitioner was advised by telephone on the afternoon of the calendar call of the date and time of the recall. During the telephone conversation, petitioner again suggested that he was located in Las Vegas prior to and on the date of the call of the calendar. The Court suggested to petitioner that his case might be dismissed if he failed to appear and prosecute the matter. When petitioner later appeared at the trial session, he did not refute respondent’s claim as to his presence in the Tampa, Florida, area. During the aforementioned conference call, petitioner also requested a continuance claiming that he did not receive any of the notices from respondent and the Court regarding the trial. Petitioner claimed that he resided in Nevada and not Florida during 1999 and 2000, despite the fact that he filed a petition in 1999 with the Clearwater, Florida, address. Further, in his motion to continue dated March 31, 2000, petitioner used aPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011