- 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 a
Page: 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