SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 

NORTHEAST DISTRICT 

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This is an action for premises liability. Plaintiff Bryce Harris (Harris) alleges that on April 23, 2023, he was checking out at Defendant Ralph’s Grocery Company, at the location in Pasadena, when he slipped and fell. He sues for recovery on those alleged injuries.  

Plaintiff, now 82 years of age, moves for preference in trial setting. Ralph’s filed an opposition on January 16, 2024. Plaintiff filed a reply on January 23, 2024.  

For the reasons set forth below, the motion for trial preference is granted.  

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Code Civ. Proc. Section 36(a) provides, “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.” (CCP § 36(a).) 

“Provided there is evidence that the party involved is over 70, all subdivision (a) requires is a showing that that party's ‘health ... is such¿that a preference is necessary¿to prevent prejudicing¿[her]¿interest in the litigation.’” (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534, internal citations omitted, emphasis in original.) When considering a motion for trial preference, courts have looked at whether Plaintiff has engaged in dilatory conduct and whether granting the motion would result in prejudice to the Defendant. (Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores (1995) 10 Ca1.4th 424, 441.) 

  

III. ANALYSIS 

This motion is accompanied by the Declaration of Bryce Harris’ counsel, Jennifer Burkes. Burkes declares that Harris was born on October 24, 1941, and is currently 82 years old. (Burkes Decl. ¶ 2.) Burkes also declares that Harris has various serious health conditions which include coronary artery disease, a recent heart attack in September of 2023, fainting, prediabetes and UTIs. (Burkes Decl. ¶¶ 5-7.) Burkes declares further that Harris has recently fallen and often experiences memory lapses as a result. (Burkes Decl. ¶ 10.)  

Attached as Exh. 2 is a medical report from Elite Medical Clinic which provides that Plaintiff Harris was seeking a pre-operation exam for a surgery on his left shoulder. (Burkes Decl. Exh. 2.) On the second page of the medical report, it is stated “The patient is NOT medically stable to proceed with the surgical procedure.” (Id.) 

Harris is the only plaintiff in this action. As such, it is clear that he has a substantial interest in the litigation. 

In opposition, Defendant Ralph’s urges that Harris did not make the requisite showing of his health condition requiring preference as to trial setting. (Opposition p. 5: 15-25.) Specifically, Defendant urges that “Plaintiff submits no medical evaluation or declaration from a physician that supports his claims.” (Id.) However, Ralph’s provides no support for this purported requirement. (See Reply, p.3: 11-12.) Indeed, there is no such requirement in this context . (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal. App. 5th 529, 534 [“The standard under subdivision (a), unlike under subdivision (d), which is more specific and more rigorous, includes no requirement of a doctor's declaration.”].) 

Secondly, Ralph’s urges that Harris has engaged in delay tactics such that granting this motion would result in prejudice to it. (Opposition, p. 6: 20-21.) In support, Ralph’s cites the fact that Harris requested extensions to respond to Ralph’s discovery requests. (Opposition p. 7: 1-6.) Ralph’s urges that this constitutes “inexcusable delay.” (Opposition p. 7: 6.) The Court declines to conclude that discovery deadline extensions are evidence of dilatory tactics for the purpose of denying an unrelated motion for trial preference. (See also Reply, p. 2.) 

Lastly, Ralph’s urges that the granting of the motion would result in prejudice to it. (Opposition p.7: 22- p. 8:16.) In support, Ralph’s cites the need for additional discovery as to Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court declines to conclude that the need to conduct routine discovery results in prejudice to Defendant Ralph’s. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference is granted.  

Trial is set _________________________, at _________. 

Final status conference is set ____________________ at __________. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

 

 

 

Dated: _______________________________ 

      MARGARET L. OLDENDORF 

         JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT