SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff Brian Kearny (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Dillion Lakhwani and Avis Budget Group, Inc. for damages arising from an automobile collision.  

Trial is currently set for April 17, 2023.   

Defendant Avis Budget Group, Inc. (“Avis”) now brings the instant motion requesting the Court to continue the trial date to a after August 14, 2024 in order for its motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) to be heard prior to trial. No parties oppose the motion.  

 

II. Trial Continuance 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).) 

Here, Avis asserts that August 14, 2024 was the earliest available hearing date, but that it is after the current trial date. Avis, thus, seeks to continue the trial date to allow its MSJ to be heard. A trial court cannot refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of CCP § 437c. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.)  Avis filed its MSJ on June 29, 2023. Avis brings this motion six months before the current trial date, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial, and there have been no prior requests for a trial continuance. Further, there are no alternative means identified to address these issues, and there is otherwise no prejudice shown to Plaintiff if trial is continued, especially as Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.  

 

Therefore, Avis establishes good cause for the continuance.  

 

Based on the foregoing, Avis’ motion to continue trial is GRANTED.  The April 17, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The April 3, 2024 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.  

 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.