Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV25128, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25128    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff Hakob Johnny Nazaretyan, individually and as guardian ad litem for minor Ariana Nazaretyan; and Sati Gevorgyan, individually, filed this action against Defendant DSD Management, LLC. The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) breach of the implied covenant of habitability, (2) negligence, and (3) nuisance.

            On February 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for trial preference on the grounds that Ariana Nazaretyan is a minor. Defendant filed its opposition on March 5, 2024. Plaintiffs filed their reply on March 11, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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(b).) The statute makes preference mandatory as long as the conditions are met, regardless of prejudice. (See Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085 [“The trial court has no power to balance the differing interests of opposing litigants in applying the provision”].)

DISCUSSION

There is no dispute that Ariana Nazaretyan is a minor under the age of 14. Defendants instead argue that the minor plaintiff does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole. The statute does not define “substantial interest,” nor is there caselaw imposing a definition. 

            Plaintiffs argue that the minor has a substantial interest in the case as a whole because she was exposed to the same uninhabitable conditions as the adult plaintiffs, suffered numerous injuries as a result, and is suing for substantial damages. Defendant argues that the minor does not have a substantial interest for the following reasons: Plaintiffs have no actual evidence of the minor’s injuries beyond a single diagnosis of ringworm with an unidentified cause; the minor is only 2.5 years old and will not be testifying, and therefore has no interest in expediting the case; the minor did not suffer lost income and did not pay for the medical expenses; the adult plaintiffs are the ones bringing the suit and will be the ones producing the evidence; and any damages awarded to the minor will be deposited in a blocked account.

            The Court agrees with Defendant. Here, the interest of the minor plaintiff is tangential compared to the adult plaintiffs, who are the primary litigants. The numerical proportion of minors to adults is not dispositive. The evidence will primarily concern and come from the adult plaintiffs. The adults would have suffered the majority of damages because they would have been the ones who paid the rent and medical expenses. Therefore, the Court finds that the minors do not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.   

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for trial preference is DENIED.