Tentative 

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED. 

Background 

This arises from an auto accident that occurred on May 31, 2020. Plaintiff Ramon Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Tzipporah Kin (“Kin”) posted her vehicle on Defendant GETAROUND, INC (“GETAROUND”), and Defendant Prence Xavier Conley (“Conley”) rented Kin’s vehicle; while driving Kin’s vehicle, Conley collided with the vehicle operated by Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed this action on December 29, 2021, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendants Conley, Kin, and GETAROUND.  

Defendants have each filed a motion for summary judgment, with hearing dates after the current trial date of February 9, 2024: Kin filed her motion for summary judgment on October 20, 2023, with a hearing date of December 3, 2024; GETAROUND filed its motion for summary judgment on October 27, 2023, with a hearing date of May 30, 2024. (Declaration of Carlyn B. Blake (“Blake Decl.”), ¶¶ 9, 10; Declaration of Jacob M. Zicarelli (“Zicarelli Decl.”), ¶ 10.)  

Legal Standard 

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8) provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.)  

Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits according to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).) California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (4) any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(d).) 

“The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.” (CCP § 437c(a)(3).) 

Discussion 

Defendants contend good cause exists to continue the trial date so both motions for summary judgment may be heard thirty (30) days before trial. Defendants contend the continuance will not unduly prejudice Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff has filed no opposition, and so there is nothing in the record to indicate that the requested continuance would unjuly prejudice Plaintiff. 

The Court finds that Defendants have established good cause for continuing trial. Good cause exists as Defendants have filed their motions for summary judgment, but these motions cannot be heard until after the current trial date.  

Therefore, the Court will grant the motion. 

Conclusion 

The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial. Trial is continued to early March 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.  

Defendant Kin is ORDERED to give notice.