Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV29276, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29276    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Ani Khachikyan, Elah Kaseblyan (“Elah”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Ani Khachikyan, and Leah Kaseblyan (“Leah”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Ani Khachikyan, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against defendants Platinum Transportation Group, Inc. (“Platinum”) and Miguel Angel Pacheco (“Pacheco”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were hired to transport Plaintiffs, and that Defendants negligently caused an accident while Plaintiffs were passengers in Defendants’ vehicle. 

Elah, born August 12, 2017, and Leah, born May 25, 2011, were passengers in Defendants’ vehicle. They suffered injuries, including stress, insomnia, and headaches as a result of the accident and require continuous care.

Plaintiffs Elah and Leah now move for trial preference pursuant to CCP §36(b) on the grounds that they are minor plaintiffs who are under 14 years of age and have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.  The motion is unopposed. 

2. Motion for Trial Preference

CCP §36(b) provides: “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.”  “A party may file and serve a motion for preference supported by a declaration of the moving party that all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared.”  (CCP § 36(c)(1).)  “Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date …”  (CCP § 36(f).) 

CCP § 36(b) priority is mandatory, and the trial court has no discretion to refuse the minor's request for early setting.  (Peters v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 223-24.)  “Failure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial preference for those litigants who qualify for preference . . . The express legislative mandate for trial preference is a substantive public policy concern which [supersedes] such considerations.”  (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1086-1087 [citation omitted].)  “Where a party meets the requisite standard for calendar preference . . . , preference must be granted. No weighing of interests is involved.”  (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 535.) 

            Here, Leah and Elah are parties to this action and are 11 and five years old, respectively.  Furthermore, Elah and Leah have a substantial interest in the case as a whole because they were involved in and to continue to suffer injuries from the subject accident.  However, Plaintiffs’ counsel submits a declaration stating, “all defendants have now either appeared or been served in this matter.”  (Mot. Burunsuzyan Decl. ¶ 6.)  This does not on its face comply with CCP § 36(c)(1), which requires a declaration that “all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared.”  (Emphasis added.)  Although Platinum and Pacheco have now been served, Plaintiffs’ operative First Amended Complaint named Does 1-100 as defendants.  Thus, it is unclear whether all essential parties have been served or appeared in the action, or if Plaintiffs have any intent to add any other essential parties to this action through Doe amendments.

            Further, it is noted that a Motion to Quash has been filed by specially appearing defendant Pacheco.  If Pacheco shows that Pacheco was not served, it is unclear whether preference can be granted.  This issue should be addressed before or in any future motion for preference. 

            Because of the number of hearings that this case has required and will likely require, and the impacted calendars of the Personal Injury Courts, this case is appropriate for transfer to an independent calendar court.  After this order is entered, the Court will enter an order transferring the matter to an independent calendar court, which can hopefully better accommodate the scheduling of hearings in this case. 

            Thus, the motion is denied without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to renew the motion when they are able to provide in good faith a declaration that complies with CCP § 36(c)(1). 

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 22^nd day of February 2023