Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV00130, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 24CHCV00130    Hearing Date: February 3, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

Motion filed: 8/29/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Lynn Kathryn Metzger

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiff Lynn Kathryn Metzger’s motion for trial preference and setting the trial date within 120 days of this hearing.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from personal injuries that Plaintiffs sustained as a result of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on November 29, 2023, on the R-73 Freeway in Irvine, California.

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiffs Lynn Kathryn Metzger (“Metzger”) and Fidel Rutwaza (“Rutwaza”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Landscape Development, Inc., Landscape Development, LLC, ARI FLEET LT LSR, LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT LSE, J De Jesus Cruz Barba, and Does 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) Negligence, and (2) Negligence Training, Supervision, and Retention. Subsequently, Defendants Landscape Development, Inc. and Landscape Development, LLC, and J De Jesus Cruz Barba filed their Answer on June 14, 2024. ARI FLEET LT LSR filed its Answer on October 25, 2024.

On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff Metzger filed the instant Motion for Trial Preference (the “Motion”).

            No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 36 provides, “A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court” finds the party “has a substantial interest in the action as a whole” and the party’s health “is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).)

“The standard under subdivision (a), unlike under subdivision (d), which is more specific and more rigorous, includes no requirement of a doctor's declaration. To the contrary, a motion under subdivision (a) may be supported by nothing more than an attorney's declaration ‘based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party.’ [Citations.]” (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534.) Once a party “meets the requisite standard for calendar preference under subdivision (a), preference must be granted. No weighing of interests is involved.” (Fox v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at 535.) This is so, even against the opposing party’s “interest in having adequate time to prepare for trial.” (Ibid.)

A case that is granted preference must be set for trial “not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or a party's attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).)

A.    Party 70 Years of Age or Older

Here, Plaintiff Metzger moves for preference applicable to a party 70 years of age or older. The moving paper states that Metzger is 79 years old. (Mot. at p. 2.) However, Plaintiff does not provide an authenticated government identification or a declaration to substantiate the date of birth or age. Metzger’s counsel, Robert W. Bates (“Bates”) includes two exhibits of doctor’s reports to his declaration. (Bates Decl. ¶¶ 4,6; Exs. “A,” “C.”) Upon reviewing these Exhibits, the Court notes that there is a discrepancy regarding Metzger’s age. Exhibit A, titled “Trauma Service Admission History and Physical” and dated November 29, 2023, indicates that Metzger was 78 years old. (Id. Ex. “A,” at p. 8.”) In contrast, Exhibit C, referenced as “Neurological Evaluation performed by Marisa C. Chang, M.D.” and dated March 27, 2024, states that Metzger was a “73-year-old female.” (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. “C,” at p. 1)

The Court notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a)(1) requires proof that a party is 70 years of age or older, which must be substantiated by admissible evidence. Here, the contradictory representations in the Exhibits undermine the Court’s ability to determine Metzger’s age with certainty.

Absent additional admissible evidence, Metzger has not met her burden of establishing that trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a) applies to her.

            Nevertheless, the Court proceeds to address the other statutory requirements.

B.     Party’s Substantial Interest in the Action

It is undisputed that Plaintiff Metzger has a substantial interest in the action as a whole, as she is one of the injured Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Metzger satisfies the requirement of having “a substantial interest in the action as a whole.”

C.    Proof of Party’s Health Condition

The moving party has a burden to show that her health is “such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a)(2).) (Underlines added.)

Here, Metzger claims that she lost consciousness as a result of the collision. (Bates Decl. ¶ 3.) She was taken to the emergency room via ambulance and admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (“ICU”), where she was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and brain bleed. (Ibid.) The Trauma Service Admission History and Physical report from the ICU is partially included as Exhibit A to Bates’ declaration and does not include the information regarding Metzger’s treatment or discharge. Exhibit B, titled “Neuropsychological Initial Intake Report” and dated March 2, 2024, summarizes Metzger’s treatment after the collision and indicates that Metzger was hospitalized for about three days due to a subdural hematoma. (Bates Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. “B.”) The “Neuropsychological Initial Intake Report” states the Mini Mental Status Exam revealed borderline to mild cognitive impairment. (Id. at p. 1.) Furthermore, it notes that “[the] subdural hematoma [] is now resolved[.]” (Id. at p. 2.)

Metzger also states that she later developed severe anxiety symptoms, moderate depressive symptoms, and a high probability of a PTSD diagnosis. (Bates Decl. ¶ 9.) Her family had to make arrangements for her to seek placement in an elderly care community to receive daily care. (Id. ¶ 7.)

The Court notes that the relevant standard under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a) accommodates a wide range of circumstances. As stated in Fox v. Superior Court, supra, “The issue under subdivision (a) is not whether an elderly litigant might die before trial or become so disabled ... [but] all subdivision (a) requires is a showing that that party's ‘health ... is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing [her] interest in the litigation.’” (Fox v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at 534, italics omitted.) Notably, Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a), does not eliminate the need to establish a reasonable connection between the party’s health and the necessity for trial preference.

Metzger has not presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that her health condition necessitates trial preference to prevent prejudice to her interest in the litigation. While she previously suffered from a subdural hematoma, it has since resolved. (Bates Decl. Ex. “B.”) Subsequent evaluation revealed only borderline-mild cognitive impairment. (Ibid.) Metzger fails to establish how these conditions impair her ability to actively participate in the proceedings.

Additionally, it is unclear how Metzger’s efforts to seek placement in an elderly care community, by itself, would indicate an inability to engage in litigation or that prejudice would result in the absence of trial preference. Importantly, there is no evidence that Metzger’s cognitive function is deteriorating or that her mental acuity is in decline.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a)(2), merely being over 70 years old with some health concerns is insufficient; a party must show that their health condition would prejudice their respective interests in the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a)(2).) Absent sufficient evidence, Metzger has not met this burden.

Accordingly, the Court finds no basis to grant trial preference.

Based on the above, the Court DENIES the Motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Lynn Kathryn Metzger’s Motion for Trial Preference is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.