Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV36088, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36088    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiffs Yoleny de la Paz Torres Cruz and Oscar Rodriguez-Torres’s Motion for Trial Preference is GRANTED.

I.                   Motion for Trial Preference

Plaintiffs Yoleny de la Paz Torres Cruz and Oscar Rodriguez-Torres (Plaintiffs) seek trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36 subdivision (b).

Subdivision (b), meanwhile, states:

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 civil action subject to subdivision (a) shall be given preference over a case subject to this subdivision.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 36, subd. (b).)

Plaintiffs also note subdivision (g) of the statute, which states:

Upon the granting of a motion for preference pursuant to subdivision (b), a party in an action based upon a health provider's alleged professional negligence, as defined in Section 364, shall receive a trial date not sooner than six months and not later than nine months from the date that the motion is granted.

A preference under section 36, subdivision (b), “is mandatory.” (Peters v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 224.) The statute’s purpose is to ensure “timely court access to children under 14 who have suffered personal injury or parental death.” (Id. at p. 226.)

The factual basis for Plaintiffs’ motion is as follows. Plaintiff Oscar Rodriguez-Torres is under the age of 14, he has a substantial interest in the case, and all relevant parties have been served with process. (Motion at p. 3.)

Defendants in opposition do not oppose the substance of the motion or Oscar’s entitlement to trial preference. Defendant Jonathan Azizzadeh in opposition argues only that his counsel is set continuously for trial until November 13, 2023, which is when he proposes that trial in this matter be set. Plaintiff in reply argues that setting trial for November 13 poses a risk of extending trial through the Thanksgiving holiday, and proposes November 6, 2023, as the date to begin trial.

The motion for trial preference is GRANTED. The trial date in this matter shall be addressed at the hearing of the motion.