Lemperle v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJanuary 24, 2020
Docket2:18-cv-00202
StatusUnknown

This text of Lemperle v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems (Lemperle v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lemperle v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, (D. Nev. 2020).

Opinion

1 || JOSH COLE AICKLEN Nevada Bar No. 007254 2 || josh.aicklen@lewisbrisbois.com STEPHEN L. TITZER 3 || Nevada Bar No. 008289 stephen.titzer@lewisbrisbois.com 4|| LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 5 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 TEL.: 702.893.3383 6 || FAX: 702.893.3789 Attorneys for Defendant 7 || VINCENT TJOTA 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 || REBECCA LEMPERLE, individually, CASE NO.: 2:18-cv-00202-JCM-DJA 13 Plaintiff, 14 VS. 15 || VINCENT TJOTA, individually; DOES I-x, 16 and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive, Defendants. 17 18 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 19 COMES NOW, Defendant VINCENT TJOTA (“Defendant”), by and through his counsel, Josh Cole Aicklen, Esq. and Stephen L. Titzer, Esq. of LEWIS BRISBOIS 21/|BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, and moves this Court for a continuance of the trial date 22 pursuant to Local Court Rule 45-2. 23 24 25 II] 26 //1 27

1 This Motion is based upon the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 2||the attached exhibits, the affidavit of counsel attached hereto, the papers and pleadings 3 || on file herein and any oral argument entertained at the time of hearing, if any. 4 DATED ie! 7 day of January, 2020. 5 Respectfully Submitted, 6 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 7 8 By /s/ Josh Cole Aicklen 9 JOSH COLE AICKLEN Nevada Bar No. 007254 10 STEPHEN L. TITZER Nevada Bar No. 008289 11 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 12 Attorneys for Defendant 13 VINCENT TJOTA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2/7 78

1 AFFIDAVIT OF STEPHEN L. TITZER, ESQ., INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S > MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

3 || STATE OF NEVADA Ss. || COUNTY OF CLARK ) 5 STEPHEN L. TITZER, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 6 1. | am a Partner at LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, and am duly 7 || licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada. 8 2. | am competent to testify to the matters set forth in this Affidavit, and will do 9 || so if called upon. 10 3. | am an attorney representing Defendant VINCENT TJOTA in the subject 11 || lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court of Nevada, Case No. 2:18-cv- 12 ||00202-JCM-DJA. 13 4. On January 15, 2020, | contacted Mike Kristoff, Esq. attorney for Plaintiff, 14 || and informed him that the Defendant Vincent Tjota lives in Singapore and cannot attend 15 || the present trial date. | requested that Plaintiff's counsel stipulate to continue the trial to 16 || December 2020. Plaintiff's counsel did not respond, thus necessitating the instant 17 || Motion. 18 5. This Motion is not filed for any improper purpose or to cause undue delay. 19 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of ECF No. 77, 20 || Order Granting Joint Pretrial Order. 21 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a Letter from 22 || Vincent Tjota to Defense Counsel Requesting a Continuance, dated January 8, 2020. 23 FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. 24 Stephen L. Titzer, Esq 25 || SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED to before 26 ||me this [> day of|January, 2020. Sh GEM oiare oe nayncn 27 se County of Clark | Notary Public in arid for said es my MELISSA Y. LATRELL 28 || County and State aes pt Expires Joly 6, 2020

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. 3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4 On Saturday, April 30, 2016, Defendant Vincent Tjota was visiting Las Vegas, 5 || Nevada and driving a Budget rental vehicle with Janice Siau, his fiancée, as a passenger. They live in Singapore. Vincent Tjota was driving a white 2016 Ford Mustang GT 7 || westbound on Bridger Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada, while stopped at the intersection of 8 Maryland Parkway. Plaintiff Rebecca Lemperle was driving a red 2015 Kia RIO LX 9 || vehicle southbound on Maryland. After stopping and looking both ways, Vincent Tjota 10 || proceeded to drive through the intersection, which was clear. At that time, Plaintiff drove 11 || through the intersection and struck Tjota’s Mustang as she was likely speeding through 12 || the intersection. Plaintiff lived in Sweden. 13 Mr. Tjota disputes liability. Mr. Tjota stopped at the intersection and looked both 14 || ways before proceeding through the intersection. Mr. Tjota did not see the Plaintiff's car 15 || and did not have enough time to react to avoid the impact. Plaintiff struck the rear panel 16 || of Defendant’s Mustang. Mr. Tjota disclosed the photographs from the scene of the 17 || accident that showed the damage to the right rear panel of his Mustang. 18 Presently, trial for this matter is scheduled to occur on June 15, 2020. See, ECF 19 ||No. 77, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Recently, on January 8, 2020, Defense counsel 20 || received a letter from Mr. Tjota who expressed a desire for trial to be pushed back until 21||December 2020 so he could be physically present at the time of trial. See, 22 || Correspondence from Vincent Tjota, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Mr. Tjota lives in 23 || Singapore and he will need to take off at least two weeks of work so he can travel to the 24 || United States and attend the trial. Id. Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests that 25 || this Court grant the Motion and continue trial until December 2020. 26 /// 27/11 28 ///

1 ll. 2 LEGAL ARGUMENT 3 A. Motions to Continue Standard and Argument 4 Pursuant to this Court’s local rules, 5 LCR 45-2 Continuance of Trial Date - Speedy Trial Act 6 A request to continue a trial date, whether by motion or stipulation, will not be considered unless it sets forth in detail 7 the reasons a continuance is necessary and the relevant 8 statutory citations for excludable periods of delay, if any, under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h). The request 9 must be accompanied by a proposed order that contained factual findings and relevant statutory citations, if any. 10 4 See, LCR 45-2.

12 District courts have the inherent power to control their respective dockets. See, 3 Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992); Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v.

14 Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 The importance of physical presence at trial cannot be overlooked. The Federal

16 Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) provides in part: 17 Rule 43. Taking Testimony 18 (a) In Open Court. At trial, the witnesses’ testimony must be taken in open court unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules 19 of Evidence, these rules, or others adopted by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. For good cause in compelling 20 circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous 21 transmission from a different location. 22 || See, FRCP 43(a). 23 oA The Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules also provided the following with respect to live testimony: 25 26 Contemporaneous transmission of testimony from a different location is permitted only on showing good cause in 27 compelling circumstances. The importance of presenting live testimony in court cannot be forgotten. The very ceremony of 28 trial and the presence of the factfinder may exert powerful

1 force for truthtelling. The opportunity to judge the demeanor of a witness face-to-face is accorded great value in our tradition. 2 Transmission cannot be justified merely by showing that it is inconvenient for the witness to attend the trial. 3 See, NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES - 1996 AMENDMENT (emphasis added). 4 As noted above, Mr. Tjota is not a United States Citizen and resides in Singapore. 5 Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lemperle v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemperle-v-avis-rent-a-car-systems-nvd-2020.