Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV13030, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13030    Hearing Date: May 23, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Rhonda Rudolph moves for an order setting this case for trial preference. Plaintiff requests that trial remain on the currently set trial date of December 16, 2024.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. A motion for trial preference would require a trial to begin no later than September 2024.  Plaintiff is not seeking a trial in September 2024 and does not contend that one is practical.

As a matter of case management and fairness, however, the Court states as follows.  Trial will commence on December 16, 2024 and the Final Status Conference will take place on December 6, 2024, all as currently scheduled.  Defendants are on notice that the Court does not intend to grant continuances of the trial date or the Final Status Conference date.  Accordingly, the parties must be fully prepared for those proceedings on those days.  The parties are referred to the Court’s Trial Preparation Order and are expected to comply with this order fully by the dates specified.

Background

This is an employment action. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (“Living Spaces”). Plaintiff has leukemia and alleges that Defendants Living Spaces, Charlynn Lok, and Susana Grennon failed to accommodate and discriminated against her on the basis of her medical condition.

Plaintiff filed this action on June 7, 2023, raising claims for (1) wrongful termination in violation of FEHA; (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (3) disability discrimination; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (5) failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process; (6) associational disability discrimination; (7) hostile work environment; (8) unfair competition; and (9) assault.

On October 25, 2023, the Court scheduled trial in this matter for December 16, 2024.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff moved for trial preference. Defendants filed an opposition and Plaintiff 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,” barring specified circumstances.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 36, subd. (f).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for trial preference on the grounds that she has a life-threatening medical condition that could significantly shorten her lifespan.  Importantly, however, Plaintiff asks for a trial date later than the 120 days specified in the statute governing trial preferences.

Plaintiff has had Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, a chronic and degenerative form of blood cancer, since 2015. (See generally Rudolph Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s doctors have explained to her that patients with this form of cancer often remain fairly stable for a long period and then suddenly worsen, which can lead to unexpected death. At times, Plaintiff’s cancer is relatively stable, but at other times, her white blood cell count suddenly changes drastically and her doctors need to change her medication immediately to preserve her life. Plaintiff’s cancer has significantly shortened her life span, and she is never sure when she could be hospitalized again. Plaintiff’s doctors have warned her that increased stress, such as that from litigation, could cause her condition to worsen.

Plaintiff also suffers from kidney disease, liver disease, high cholesterol, and pre-diabetes.

Plaintiff’s liver and kidney diseases are a result of her leukemia. In order to treat her cancer, Plaintiff has undergone multiple rounds of chemotherapy, which caused irreversible damage to her liver and kidneys. Plaintiff’s doctors have told her that her liver and kidney functioning will never return to normal. One result of this damage is that Plaintiff must be careful about taking any medications, even over-the-counter medications. At the same time, the medication regime necessary to control Plaintiff’s cancer is further weakening her kidneys. Plaintiff’s doctors have warned her that her kidneys could fail in the future.

Defendants make two arguments in opposition.

First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to provide dates for her deposition and has noticed several other depositions which have given rise to discovery disputes. Plaintiff’s motion falls under the subdivisions of section 36 where relief is discretionary, and not mandatory, so the Court may consider discovery issues. The Court agrees with Defendant that the facts relating to the scheduling of Plaintiff’s deposition would interfere with the Court’s ability to set the trial within 120 days required by the statute. 

As noted, ordinarily, trials with preference must be set within 120 of the granting of the motion for trial preference. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).) Plaintiff requests that the trial be set for December 16, 2024, well after that deadline. Functionally, Plaintiff is not really asking for a trial preference under section 36.  Instead, she is asking for an order barring further continuances. The Court is inclined to agree that Plaintiff’s request—while not formally a request for trial preference—is appropriate.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not provided medical documentation that actually indicates the level of risk that her medical conditions pose to her life. This appears true. The Court considers the documentation provided by Plaintiff sufficient. 

Based on the totality of circumstances, the Court does not believe that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for relief under section 36(d), which requires trial within 120 days of today, and declines to formally set the case for trial preference under section 36(e).  However, the Court expects the already-set December 16, 2024 trial date to remain firm.