Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-01178188, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues, filed on 3/23/22, by moving party Kia America, Inc. (here “MP”) as to all of the claims presented in the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Ann Gill (“Plaintiff”).  Plaintiff, in opposition, has requested a continuance pursuant to CCP § 437c(h) to obtain facts essential to justify her opposition. 

“If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just.”  (CCP § 437c(h).)

A continuance is a matter within the broad discretion of the court but is “virtually mandated ‘“upon a good faith showing by affidavit that a continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to justify opposition to the motion.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 395.)  Continuances are to be liberally granted.” (Ibid.)  “Where the opposing party submits an adequate affidavit showing that essential facts may exist but cannot be presented timely, the court must either deny summary judgment or grant a continuance. [Citation.]”  (Dee v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 30, 34-35.)  “The nonmoving party seeking a continuance ‘must show: (1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain these facts. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]”  (Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 633.)

The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Christopher D. Henderson, presents a sufficient good faith showing that a continuance is needed to obtain facts necessary to oppose the motion.  Counsel explains Plaintiff’s expert is set to inspect the subject vehicle on October 14, 2022.  (Declaration of Christopher D. Henderson, ¶ 9.)  There is reason to believe that facts to oppose the motion exist, and the declaration explains the reason why additional time is needed to obtain these facts.  (Ibid.)

Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues, filed by Kia America, Inc. is continued to a date to be determined at the time of the hearing on this motion pursuant to CCP § 437c(h) and the Declaration of Christopher D. Henderson.

Plaintiff is to submit a supplemental brief of no more than 5 pages (exclusive of declarations) no later than fourteen (14) days before the continued hearing date.  Defendant may submit a reply brief of no more than 5 pages (exclusive of declarations) no later than nine (9) days before the continued hearing date.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.