Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24BBCV00134, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00134    Hearing Date: March 14, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Maria Feldman (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on August 19, 2022, she was lawfully walking her leashed chihuahua along the sidewalk when Defendant Joanna Johnson (“Defendant”) and her two dogs were barreling down the sidewalk approaching Plaintiff.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Bernedoodle broke free from Defendant’s grasp and lunged at Plaintiff’s person, knocking her to the ground.  Plaintiff alleges that as she fell to the ground, she attempted to break her fall by putting out her dominant hand to avoid more severe injury to her face or head and neck.  Plaintiff alleges that she suffered a broken bone in her dominant, right hand. 

The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed June 24, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) NIED; and (3) IIED.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On January 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference under CCP § 36(a). 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

According to CCP § 36(a), a party to a civil action who is over the age of 70 must be given preference if the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole and the health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.  To make the findings required by CCP § 36(a), evidence must be provided with the motion for preference establishing Plaintiff’s age and the relevant conditions of her health warranting a preference.  Pursuant to CCP § 36.5, an attorney affidavit offered in support of a motion for preference may be based on information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of a party.  If a motion for preference based on a party’s age is granted, the matter must be set for trial not more than 120 days from the date the motion is granted.  (CCP § 36(f).)

Pursuant to CCP § 36(e), in its discretion, the court may grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting preference. 

Finally, CCP § 36(c)(1) requires that all essential parties be served with process or have appeared in the action in order to grant a motion for preference.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for trial preference so that trial will be set within 120 days from the hearing date.

A Status Conference re: Private Mediation is on calendar for May 20, 2025.  The Final Status Conference is set for July 9, 2026.  The Jury Trial is set for July 20, 2026. 

Plaintiff is currently 95 years old.  (Mot., at p.2.)   Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has a substantial interest in the action as she claims she was injured as a result of the alleged dog attack.  The remaining issue is whether Plaintiff’s health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing Plaintiff’s interest in the litigation.

The motion’s memorandum of points and authorities states: “Due to Mrs. Feldman’s advanced age, there is a substantial risk that her health could deteriorate, making it difficult—if not impossible—for her to participate in the trial if it is delayed. This incident has already left Mrs. Feldman with a permanent disfigurement of her dominant hand, an injury that not only affects her physically but has also inflicted psychological trauma. Now, Ms. Feldman suffers frequent anxiety attacks, and this trauma has resulted in substantial vulnerability over the Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic life functions. Furthermore, Mrs. Feldman has a history of stroke.”  (Mot. at p.2.) 

Plaintiff’s motion is a bit light on the facts, but the client is 95 years old, which carries quite a bit of weight on a motion like this.

The motion to preferentially set the trial date is granted.  The motion is not opposed.  Plaintiff is 95 years old, and the motion papers provide sufficient reasons to show that Plaintiff’s age and health warrant a preference.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff Maria Feldman’s motion for trial preference is granted.  The trial shall be set for July 7, 2025 at 9:30 a.m.  The final status conference shall be set for June 26, 2025 at 9:00  a.m.

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.                           

DATED:  March 14, 2025                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court