Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV05360, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV05360    Hearing Date: February 28, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.          Allegations

Plaintiff Marlene Plemons (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on May 23, 2024, she was a patient of Defendant City of Hope National Medical Center (“City of Hope”) for surgical intervention.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan Kochiyama, R.N. (“Kochiyama”) negligently handled Plaintiff, allowing her to fall to the floor and suffer a significant fracture. 

The complaint, filed October 28, 2024, alleges a single cause of action for general negligence resulting in personal injuries.

On December 18, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice the complaint as to Defendant Ryan Kochiyama, R.N. only.

On December 16, 2024, City of Hope filed a Stipulation, wherein Plaintiff and City of Hope agreed that the general negligence cause of action is truly a cause of action for medical negligence related to the rendering of medical services.

B.     Motion on Calendar  

            On December 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to CCP § 36(a) and/or 36(e).

            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.  No trial date has been set.  A Case Management Conference is set for April 7, 2025. 

Plaintiff is currently 85 years old (date of birth: October 1, 1939).  (Plemons Decl., ¶2.)  Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has a substantial interest in the action as she claims she was injured due to the alleged negligent handling of City of Hope’s employee, Kochiyama, which caused her to fall to the ground and suffer a fractured hip.  (Ohanian Decl., ¶2, Ex. A [Medical Records].)

Plaintiff’s counsel, Raffi H. Ohanian, provides his declaration in support of the motion.  Counsel states that prior to the incident, Plaintiff was physically able to ambulate independently, drive, exercise, and was generally doing fine.  (Ohanian Decl., ¶3.)  He states that a fracture can significantly affect the quality of life and decrease the life expectancy of an 85-year-old individual. (Id., ¶4.)  He states: “Although the fracture is noted to be healing, she continues to have pain with significant limitations that have impacted her entire life and her health has begun to spiral. These limitations will no doubt have a deleterious effect on her overall health and life expectancy, combined with her other listed health conditions.”  (Id., ¶5.)  Plaintiff’s other health conditions include chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and left carotid stenosis; she also has a past history of brain surgery and gallbladder surgery.  (Id., ¶6.)  Counsel states that all essential parties have been served with process or appeared.  (Id., ¶7.)  He states that Plaintiff’s health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation, she is a victim of extremely serious trauma, and this is highly associated with life threatening injury.  (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration sufficiently states that given Plaintiff’s age and her current medical conditions, Plaintiff’s health decline sufficiently shows that her interests would be prejudiced if a preference were not granted.  The motion is not opposed.  For these reasons, the Court grants the motion for trial preference. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motion for trial preference is granted.  The trial shall be preferentially set for June 23, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in this department.  Final status conference is set for June 12, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED:  February 28, 2025                                                  ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court