Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV00591, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00591    Hearing Date: December 3, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Doe v. Weinstein, Case no. 23SMCV00591

Hearing date December 3, 2024

Defendant Weinstein’s Motion for Trial Preference

On December 19, 2022 defendant Weinstein was criminally convicted of raping plaintiff Doe, who sues based on that assault. Defendant moves for trial preference, asserting his age and poor health, per Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §36. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing Weinstein has not requested preference in other pending matters.

A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition for trial preference, which the court “shall” grant if the court finds: (1) the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole, and (2) the health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §36(a)(1)-(2).

Defendant is 72, currently imprisoned in New York and suffers from various medical conditions. Defendant argues he will be prejudiced if trial preference is not granted. Weinstein is the sole defendant in this action, establishing his substantial interest. Defendant offers the declaration of counsel Bonjean, as allowed per Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §36.5, regarding his medical condition (filed under seal). The declaration details defendant’s current health status, including various significant diagnoses and recent medical procedures. See Bonjean decl., paras. 4-7. Defendant’s health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudice.

Plaintiff argues defendant will not be prejudiced if the motion is denied and asserts the motion is an attempt to avoid potential collateral estoppel arising from defendant's ongoing criminal cases. This is speculative. The Code states such motion “shall” be granted if the requisite findings are made, as here. Motion GRANTED.