Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV00780, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00780    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Moradzedah v. City of Los Angeles

CASE NO.:                24SMCV00780

MOTION:                  Motion for Trial Preference

HEARING DATE:   1/29/25

Legal Standard

A party who is 70 years of age or older, or who reach that age during pendency of the action, may be entitled to preference if they establish to the court's satisfaction that: 1) he has a “substantial interest in the action as a whole”; and 2) his health is “such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.” (CCP § 36(a), (c)(2).) In contrast to minor plaintiffs, trial¿priority is not mandatory and absolute merely because one of the parties is age 70. The court has discretion to determine the¿extent¿of that party's interest and find as a matter of fact the risk posed of that party's death or incapacity if¿trial¿is delayed. (CCP § 36(a).) However, if the factors are shown, the Court “shall” grant preference. 

A¿trial¿must be set within 120 days even if opposing parties have not completed discovery or pretrial preparations. (Swaithes v. Superior Court¿(1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1086.) Mere inconvenience to the court or to other litigants is irrelevant. (Rice¿v.¿Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 81, 89-94; but see Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923-924 [when brought into case after over half the time to litigate has passed, party should be given “at least enough time” to “reasonably complete discovery and bring a summary judgment motion.”].) Thus, the Court¿generally focuses on the moving parties’ burden, rather than striking a balance between the conflicting interests of opposing litigants.

A declaration supporting a motion for CCP section 36(a)¿preference¿“may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking¿preference¿based upon information and belief¿as to the¿medical diagnosis and prognosis¿of¿any party.” (CCP § 36.5.) Accordingly, an attorney's declaration can consist entirely of hearsay and conclusions. (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534.)

Moreover, the court has the general discretionary power to grant priority to any case upon a showing of good cause, i.e. “that the interests of justice will be served by granting this¿preference.” (CCP § 36(e).)  

Analysis

Plaintiff Kian Moradzadeh moves for trial preference. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that preference is necessary to prevent prejudice against her interest in the litigation. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to evidence a substantial likelihood that she will be prejudiced unless granted preference. Plaintiff is 80 years old. (Moradzadeh Decl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff claims that she has respiratory problems, that she “frequently” goes to the hospital (including in June 2024), and that her health is “not good.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s declaration only points to her advanced age and non-descript health issues. These vague facts do not show any substantial risk of her death or incapacity prior to trial. As such, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to show that preference would be necessary to protect her interest in the litigation. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.