Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV11209, Date: 2024-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11209    Hearing Date: October 14, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff Saul Andres Reyes (Plaintiff), by and through his guardian ad litem, Bertha Ramirez,  along with plaintiffs Yeymi Alejandra Perez Ramirez, Gloria Leslie Reyes, Bertha Ramirez (collectively Plaintiffs) brought suit against Defendants 1037 North Sycamore (Los Angeles) Owner, L.P.; CIM Group, L.P.; and CIM Holdings, LLC (collectively Defendants). Plaintiffs brought suit individually and as successors in interest to decedent Luca Obdolio Perez Vicente (Decedent) for negligence, wrongful death, and survival damages.

Now, Plaintiff moves for a court order granting him trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (b), because Plaintiff is a minor under 14 years of age with a substantial interest in the case.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 36 provides, in part: “A civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (b).) Upon an affirmative showing that the moving party satisfies the requirements of Section 36, subdivision (b), the trial court has no discretion to refuse a minor’s request for early setting. (Peters v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 223-224.)

Further, it is irrelevant that a motion for statutory preference may result in inconvenience to the court or other litigants or may prevent the completion of discovery or other pretrial matters. (Swaithes v Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085-1086.) Cases entitled to this preference must be set for trial ahead of other cases. (See Miller v Superior Court (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1200, 1206-1212.) A court has no discretion to delay a trial setting after a motion for trial preference is granted. (Id. at p. 1204; see also Sprowl v. Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 777, 781.)

Here, the declaration of counsel does not attach admissible evidence of Plaintiff’s age. Counsel further broadly declares that Plaintiff “has a substantial interest in the action as a whole, in that he is a successor in interest to Decedent Lucas Obdulio Perez Vicente.” (Klein Decl. ¶ 9.)

The Court therefore does not have a sufficient basis to find that the requirements of section 36 have been met.[1]

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Motion for Trial Preference is Denied.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.