Deshawn Black Cunningham vs. Vanderbreek Motors, Inc

34-2022-00325485-CU-BC-GDS: Deshawn Black Cunningham vs. Vanderbreek Motors, Inc 11/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.

The motion of Defendant Vanderbeek Motors, Inc. dba BMW of Roseville (“Defendant”) to continue trial is DENIED. The request to continue the mandatory settlement conference is denied as moot as the Court previously vacated the MSC based on the agreement of the parties. (Minute Order, 11/12/2025.)

Trial in this action is currently scheduled for January 12, 2026. Defendant previously filed a motion for summary judgment, which is scheduled for hearing less than 30 days before trial, on December 16, 2025. Absent a showing of good cause, a motion for summary judgment must be heard at least 30 days before trial. Thus, as currently scheduled, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is untimely. Defendant now requests a continuance of trial so that the motion for summary judgment may be heard as scheduled.

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Ibid.) “The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 [of the Standards of Judicial Administration] is that ‘. . . the necessity for the continuance should have resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by granting of a continuance.” (Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [emphasis

34-2022-00325485-CU-BC-GDS: Deshawn Black Cunningham vs. Vanderbreek Motors, Inc 11/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

added].)

Defendant cites to Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526 as authority that the Court should accommodate the currently-scheduled hearing date for Defendant’s motion for summary judgment by continuing the trial date. In Sentry, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 529 the First District Court of Appeal ruled that trial courts may not refuse to hear a timely filed motion for summary judgment based on the application of local rules and practices.

Sentry is distinguishable from the facts of this case as it was Defendant’s own lack of diligence, not the application of local rules and practices that prevented Defendant from obtaining a timely hearing. Trial is scheduled for January 12, 2026. Thirty days before trial is Saturday, December 13, 2025. Thus, absent a showing of good cause, the last day to hear a motion for summary judgment is Friday, December 12, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(3).) A motion for summary judgment must be filed and served 81 days before the hearing, plus additional time depending on the manner of service. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 437c(a)(2).) Thus, Defendant was required to file and personally serve the motion by September 22, 2025. Defendant concedes the motion for summary judgment was not served until September 25, 2025. (Crosby Decl., ¶ 15.) Defendant’s failure to timely file and serve a motion for summary judgment is not good cause for a continuance.

Moreover, a motion to continue trial must be made “as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).) Here, Defendant was aware of the potential need for a continuance on September 24, 2025 when Defendant reserved the hearing for the motion. (Crosby Decl., ¶ 13.) Defendant did not file an application to continue trial until November 6, 2025. Defendant offers no explanation for the delay. Defendant’s failure to file a request to continue trial as soon as reasonably practical provides alternative grounds for denying the motion.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to continue trial is denied.

This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00325485-CU-BC-GDS: Deshawn Black Cunningham vs. Vanderbreek Motors, Inc 11/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.