Bradford v. Van Cleave CA4/3

Filed 6/12/15 Bradford v. Van Cleave CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CAROLYN BRADFORD,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G050692

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIC10014089)

MEGHAN LYN VAN CLEAVE, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

ALLEN BRADFORD,

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. RIC10014090)

v.

MEGHAN LYN VAN CLEAVE,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Ronald L. Taylor, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Law Offices of Zulu Ali, Zulu Ali and Maleha Khan-Avila for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Bonnie R. Moss & Associates and Bradley R. Blamires for Defendant and Respondent. * * * INTRODUCTION 1 Plaintiffs Carolyn Bradford and Allen Bradford appeal from the judgment entered in favor of defendant Meghan Lyn Van Cleave, following a jury trial of the Bradfords’ negligence claims arising out of an automobile accident. The Bradfords contend the trial court erred by denying their oral motion for a continuance of the trial. We affirm. The appellate record does not show (1) the grounds asserted by the Bradfords to the trial court in seeking a continuance of the trial, (2) their motion satisfied the requirements of rule 3.1332 of the California Rules of Court, or (3) the reason the trial court denied their motion. Even if we were to assume, for the purpose of our analysis, that the trial court erred by denying the motion to continue the trial, the Bradfords have failed to show prejudicial error. BACKGROUND In July 2010, Carolyn filed a form complaint against Van Cleave, alleging that on July 21, 2008, Van Cleave made an unsafe lane change while driving on a highway and negligently collided into the back of the Bradfords’ car. Carolyn asserted claims for motor vehicle and general negligence against Van Cleave. Allen separately filed a form complaint containing the same claims and allegations against Van Cleave as asserted by Carolyn. In her case management statement, Carolyn stated that she had to be treated “due to pain in the pelvic area, both legs, both hands, neck and shoulders.” She further 1 We refer to Carolyn Bradford and Allen Bradford individually by their first names for clarity and intend no disrespect; we refer to them collectively as the Bradfords.