Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV33517, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33517    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Hertz Vehicles LLC’s Motion to Continue Trial

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On September 10, 2021, Plaintiffs Avraham Phil (“Phil”) and Anat Phil-Golan (“Phil-Golan”) filed this action against Defendants Hertz Vehicles LLC (“Hertz”) and Weonkyou Moon (“Moon”) for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence and negligence per se.

On October 4, 2021, Hertz filed an answer. On October 21, 2021, Hertz filed an amended answer. On January 18, 2022, Moon filed an answer.

On February 24, 2023, the Court dismissed Hertz, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On January 25, 2023, Hertz filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on March 9, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 9, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Hertz requests the Court continue trial so that their MSJ can be heard prior to trial.

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

Hertz has been dismissed from this action; the Court does not find good cause to grant a continuance based on the request of a dismissed defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Hertz Vehicles LLC’s Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED as moot.

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.