Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV18856, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18856    Hearing Date: October 10, 2022    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Tyetta Tilmon, et al.,

 

 

 

Plaintiffs,

 

Case No.:

 

 

22STCV18856

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Danstrull. L.P.,

 

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: October 10, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Trial Preference

Moving Party: Minor Plaintiffs

Responding Party: Defendant Danstrull, L.P.

 

T/R:    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE IS GRANTED.

 

            PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

 

CCP § 36(b) provides, “[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.”

The three minor Plaintiffs, who range in age from 2 to 10 years old, move for trial preference. This is a landlord-tenant action. Plaintiffs assert Defendants failed to maintain their rental units, resulting in insect infestations, mold, and inoperable appliances and utilities. Plaintiffs allegedly suffered from respiratory distress and nausea.

In opposition, Defendant argues that the minor Plaintiffs do not have a substantial interest in the case because they are not parties to the lease and have not suffered any “grievous” injury. This argument is unpersuasive. The minor Plaintiffs have a substantial interest in this case because they occupied the subject rentals and allegedly suffered injury. The Court cannot find, based on the record before it, that the injuries of the minor Plaintiffs are so trivial that the minors do not have a substantial interest in the case.

The Court denies Defendant’s request, made in their opposition, to sever the claims of the minor Plaintiffs.

The motion is GRANTED.