Jeffrey Chen, et al. v. Dennis Dwight Rollins, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

JEFFREY CHEN, et al., Case No.: CIVSB2400039 Plaintiffs, [TENTATIVE] ORDER (1) CONTINUING HEARING ON v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SETTING DENNIS DWIGHT ROLLINS, et al., BRIEFING SCHEDULE; (2) CONTINUING TRIAL Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a vehicle accident litigation. On August 5, 2022, Plaintiffs Jeffrey Chen,

Mengmeng Catherine Han, and Han Hun Joyce Chiu filed their Complaint against Defendants

Dennis Dwight Rollins and PV Holding Corporation. The Complaint pleads 2 causes of action:

(1) negligence against both, and (2) violation of Vehicle Code section 22350 (excessive

speeding) against Rollins. Defendants Rollins and PV Holding answered.

The Complaint alleges that Chen was driving northbound, with Han and Chiu as

passengers, on the I-15 north of Hodge Rd, Barstow, when he was rear-ended by Rollins, which

led to a 3-vehicle chain collision. Rollins failed to notice that the traffic was coming to a stop.

The 2020 Ford Mustang driven by Rollins is owned by PV Holding (¶¶ 6-10).

Defendant PV Holding moves for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Chen, Han, Chiu oppose.

Defendant PV Holding replies. After issuing a tentative ruling and holding a hearing on the

motion, the Court now issues its final ruling.1

II. EXPLANATION OF RULING

Generally, courts are reluctant to consider summary judgment/adjudication motions until

a reasonable opportunity is provided to the opposing party to gather the necessary evidence to

oppose the motion. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843; Martine v.

Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 715, 721; Dee v. Vintage

Petroleum, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 30, 34-35.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c,

subdivision (h), provides “[i]f 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 orders

as may be just.”

To obtain the continuance, the party’s supporting declaration must show (i) facts

establishing a likelihood that controverting evidence may exist and why the information sought

is essential to opposing the MSJ, (ii) the specific reasons why the evidence cannot be presently

presented, (iii) an estimate of the time to obtain such evidence, and (iv) the specific steps or

procedures the opposing party intends to obtain the evidence. (501 East 51st Street, etc. v.

Kookmin Best Ins. Co., Ltd. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 924, 939.) If this requisite showing is made,

1 The Court finds that the moving party has complied with its meet-and-confer obligation.

then the continuance is virtually mandated. (Insalaco v. Hope Lutheran Church of West Contra

Costa (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 506, 517.)

Here, Plaintiffs ask that the motion be denied, or alternatively, continued for 30 to 45

days because they have been unable to obtain essential information through deposing Defendants

Rollins and PV Holding’s Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK). Although Rollins deposition was

set for April 10, 2026, he was a no-show. His counsel was unable to get a hold of him to secure

his appearance. (Bates Decl. at ¶¶ 3-5, 9.) Similarly, PV Holding’s PMK’s deposition was set for

April 15, 2026, which was scheduled after meeting and conferring since November 2025.

However, the PMK’s deposition was subsequently canceled with no new dates yet provided.

(Bates Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 10.) The PMK’s deposition is essential to gather evidence on the process

used to rent a car to a driver, the process to determine Rollins’ eligibility to drive, maintenance

records, identify who interacted with Rollins, and if internal investigations were done on the

accident. (Bates Decl. at ¶ 8.)

In response to this argument, alleging withholding of key witnesses, the defense does not

dispute the allegation but instead identifies “uncooperative clients” as the source of the

withholding. (Reply Brief filed 5/11/2026) at page 1, line 27.)

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff should have more time to obtain evidence that

appears relevant to defending this motion. In particular, the Plaintiff should have an opportunity

to depose PV Holding’s PMK.

Given the circumstances presented here, including a trial date about one month away for

a case filed in August 2022, the Court is ordering a continuance of the summary judgment

motion hearing and the trial, but is ordering as brief a continuance as is practical. Also, the Court

is warning the defense that if its client continues to be uncooperative with the discovery process,

the Court may exercise discretion at the continued hearing to simply deny summary judgment.

The Court is further warning the parties that, in light of the five year deadline set forth in Code of

Civil Procedure, § 583.310, the newly-continued trial date is firm and will not be continued.

The Court also provides the following guidance to the parties about the proper scope of

briefing on the MSJ: The MSJ argues that PV Holding cannot be vicariously liable for Rollins’

driving, or directly liable under theories of negligent entrustment, negligent maintenance, or as

owner. However, the Complaint’s sole allegations against PV Holding is that it owned the

vehicle driven by Rollins (¶¶ 9, 15). The Complaint does not plead any liability against PV

Holdings as employer/principal of Rollins, for entrusting the vehicle to Rollins, or for not

maintaining the vehicle. So discovery, arguments, and analysis on vicarious liability, negligent

entrustment, and negligent maintenance are superfluous and will not be considered.

III. CONCLUSION A. Summary Judgment Motion

1. The Court is CONTINUING the motion hearing on Defendant PV Holding’s

Motion for Summary Judgment to July 22, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.;

2. Supplemental Briefing Schedule

a. No later than July 1, 2026, Plaintiff shall file and serve any supplemental opposition addressing the MSJ on its merits;

b. No later than July 8, 2026, Defendant PV Holding shall file and serve any

supplemental reply in response to the supplemental opposition.

3. Scope of Summary Judgment Motion: The scope of the MSJ is limited to the

sole negligence theory pled in the Complaint against PV Holding, i.e., its liability as owner of the

2020 Ford Mustang, as outlined in Vehicle Code sections 17150 and 17151.

B. Trial Continuance

a. The Trial Readiness Conference is CONTINUED from June 18, 2026 to

January 7, 2027 at 9:00 a.m.;

b. Trial in this matter is CONTINUED from June 22, 2026 to January 11,

2027 at 10:00 a.m.;

c. The parties are reminded that compliance with the Trial Setting Order

issued January 6, 2025 is mandatory and failure to comply with it may result in sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court