Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2023-00055457-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 21, 2024

03/22/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00055457-CU-PO-CTL CROGAN VS COHN RESTAURANT GROUP INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Jeanmarie Crogan's Motion for Trial Preference is denied without prejudice.

Civil Procedure Code § 36(a) 'provides that '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 makes both of the following findings: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.' Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 533 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).) 'Where a party meets the requisite standard for calendar preference under subdivision (a), preference must be granted. No weighing of interests is involved.' (Id. at 535.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden to show that her current health 'is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.' (CCP § 36(a).) It is clear to the Court that Plaintiff is suffering from cardiac and orthopedic health issues. However, Plaintiff has failed to explain how these health issues impair her ability to meaningfully participate in trial such that her interest would be prejudiced. This link is discussed by the Court in Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529. There, plaintiff presented evidence that, while she was able to participate in the trial at that time, her ongoing treatment would 'further impair [her] stamina and ability to focus, concentrate, and effectively communicate'. (Id. at 532.) Her attorney opined, 'so that [plaintiff's] interest will not be prejudiced, it is imperative that the trial be held as soon as possible.' (Id.) Although the plaintiff's death was a looming concern, the 'critical[]' concern of the Court was plaintiff's declining mental state. (Id. at 535.) While Plaintiff need not show she is suffering from a terminal illness, she must demonstrate a direct connection between her health and her ability to effectively participate in the litigation such that, without trial preference, her interests will be prejudiced.

All evidentiary objections are overruled.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3089096  24