Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 21STCV41076, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41076    Hearing Date: September 19, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant 4525 Rosemead Blvd., LLC (“Defendant”) moves for an order setting this case for trial preference.

The Court is willing to grant the motion, but if it does so it must set trial no later than January 17, 2025.  Moreover, if the Court grants the motion, the parties should be aware that the Court will lack discretion to grant any continuance of this trial date for more than 15 days, even if all parties agree to and request a continuance.

Alternatively, if Defendant withdraws the motion, the Court is willing to set a trial on or about March 10, 2025.

The Court will discuss these scheduling issues with the parties at the hearing. The Court encourages the parties to speak with one another about the trial date prior to the hearing.

Background

This is a property case.

Plaintiff Michael Amin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 8, 2021, seeking specific performance to compel the sale of the property located at 4525 Rosemead Boulevard, Pico Rivera, California 90660 (the “Property”). Defendant is a limited liability company that owns the Property.

The Complaint raises claims for (1) breach of contract; and (2) specific performance.

Bahram Mashhood (“Mashhood”) is the managing member of Defendant. Defendant contends that Mashhood is also an individual Doe defendant. (Mashhood Decl. ¶ 2.)

            Mashhood as Stage 4 cancer, a terminal illness that raises a substantial medical doubt of Mashhood’s survival beyond six months. (Sanani Decl. ¶ 4.)

On March 4, 2024, Defendant notified the Court that Mashhood had Stage Four cancer. Judge Stephen Goodrich in Department 39, where this case was assigned, set trial for July 23, 2024. The Court invited Defendant to bring an ex parte application to protect the trial date.

On May 15, 2024, the Court reassigned this case to Judge Tony Richardson in Department 39. Defendant filed an ex parte application for trial preference on June 3, 2024. On June 5, 2024, Judge Richardson recused himself from this case, vacated all dates, and transferred the case to Department 1 for reassignment.

On June 10, 2024, this case was reassigned to Department 72.

Defendant moved for trial preference on August 2, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendant filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Actions can be set for trial preference under several circumstances.

First, “[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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).)

Second, “[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).)

Third, “[i]n its discretion, the court may also grant a motion for preference that is accompanied by clear and convincing medical documentation that concludes that one of the parties suffers from an illness or condition raising substantial medical doubt of survival of that party beyond six months, and that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (d).)

Fourth, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion 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 this preference.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (e).)

When a court grants a request for a preference, “the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from the date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days,” except for a 15 day continuance in certain specified circumstances.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 36, subd. (f).)

Discussion

            Defendant seeks a setting of preference under the third statutory ground.

            Bahram Mashhood (“Mashhood”) is the managing member of Defendant. Defendant contends that Masshood is also an individual Doe defendant. (Mashhood Decl. ¶ 2.)

            Mashhood as Stage 4 cancer, a terminal illness that raises a substantial medical doubt of Mashhood’s survival beyond six months. (Sanani Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has unduly delayed in seeking trial preference and argues that Mashhood’s survival for six months past the date of his diagnosis suggests that his medical prognosis has changed. The Court disagrees with this argument. Mashhood still has Stage 4 cancer, which still creates a substantial doubt about his survival for six months going forward. The fact that he has not yet passed away does not diminish this risk.

Plaintiff requests that trial not be set before January 2025 because Plaintiff’s counsel has trials during the weeks of November 12, December 9, December 16, and December 30. Defendant states that it agrees with Plaintiff and wishes for trial to be set in February, 2025 or as soon as possible thereafter.

The day 120 days from September 19, the hearing date for this motion, is Friday, January 17, 2025. That is the latest date that trial could be set if trial preference is granted – the Court would not have discretion to set a later date.  Nor would the Court have discretion to continue it for more than 15 days beyond that date, and could only grant this short continuance on a showing of good cause.