Bradford v. Van Cleave CA4/3

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…