- 8 -
Keil. Montgomery filed that motion with the Court at the call of
the calendar of the regular San Diego session. The Court denied
this motion and informed the parties’ counsel that petitioners’
case would be tried during the second week of the regular San
Diego session. Montgomery told Ms. Keil that this motion was
denied. He did not tell her that petitioners’ case was set for
trial during the second week of the regular San Diego session.
Near the end of the first week of the regular San Diego
session, the Court concluded that wildfires in the San Diego area
could be dangerous during the remainder of that session. On
October 27, 2003, the Court sua sponte continued the trial of
petitioners’ case to December 16, 2003, and notified the parties
of the same. On November 28, 2003, Montgomery filed with the
Court a motion to continue petitioners’ case from December 16,
2003, asserting that he would be outside the United States on a
family vacation during that time. Montgomery informed Ms. Keil
that this motion would be granted, and she and Mr. Keil made
separate plans to be in the States of Hawaii and Washington,
respectively, over the new trial date. The Court denied
Montgomery’s motion on December 1, 2003. Montgomery never
informed petitioners of this action, and petitioners traveled
pursuant to their plans.
Subsequently, Montgomery and respondent settled all issues
in the case before December 16, 2003. They filed the first
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