Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV17673, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17673    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant AVIS Rent a Car’s Motion to Continue Trial

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff Karen Johana Lima Monzon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Hua Tong (“Hua”) and AVIS Rent a Car (“AVIS”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Nian Tong (“Nian”).

On October 18, 2021, AVIS filed an answer. On May 26, 2022, AVIS filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) for indemnity, apportionment of fault, comparative fault and declaratory relief. 

On August 11, 2022, the City filed an answer to the Cross-Complaint and its own Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants AVIS, Hua and Nian for indemnity, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. On September 8, 2022, AVIS filed an answer. 

On January 25, 2023, AVIS filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on February 23, 2023. On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 15, 2023, AVIS filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 11, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

AVIS request the Court continue trial to July 16, 2023.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

CRC rule 3.1332(b) outlines that “a party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

Under CRC 3.1332(c), The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts,” or the unavailability of a party, counsel, or expert due to death, illness or other excusable circumstance. The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. CRC 3.1332(d).

DISCUSSION

AVIS requests the Court continue trial so that their MSJ may be heard prior to trial. Trial is scheduled for May 11, 2023; in order for the MSJ to be heard prior to the current trial date, the MSJ must be heard by April 11, 2023. In order for the MSJ to be heard by that date, it needed to be filed and served by January 26, 2023. There is no indication the MSJ has been filed or served; a mere reservation date is not sufficient to establish service. According to AVIS’s moving papers, AVIS had received all relevant information by January, including Plaintiff’s refusal to settle. Despite this, AVIS did not file an MSJ. The Court does not find good cause to grant the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant AVIS Rent a Car’s Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.