Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2023-00039568-CU-PO-NC, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 16, 2024

05/17/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael D Washington

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00039568-CU-PO-NC C.I.D. VS VALLEY CENTER-PAUMA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISCTRICT [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Preference, 03/22/2024

An appearance is necessary on the Motion for Trial Preference brought by plaintiff C.I.D. The Court notes this case is also set for hearing on a Case Management Conference.

The instant case is brought by three minors – plaintiffs C.I.D., L.D., and J.T. The minor appear to be brothers, with C.I.D. being the youngest and with L.D. and J.T. being older and having since moved-on to high school. Each of the minors brings this action by and through a Guardian ad Litem, as follows: --C.I.D. – brought via Guardian ad Litem S.D.

--L.D. – brought via Guardian ad Litem S.D.

--J.T. – brought via Guardian ad Litem C.D.

The instant motion is brought solely by plaintiff C.I.D., so he will be referenced herein as the 'Plaintiff' in the singular. All three of the plaintiffs, C.I.D., L.D., and J.T., will be collectively referenced as 'Plaintiffs' in the plural.

The case involves allegations of sexual abuse on a school playground by other minors. Plaintiffs allege a single cause of action for negligence per se.

Of the three Plaintiffs, it appears that only the moving Plaintiff, C.I.D., is under the age of 14. As a result, only Plaintiff C.I.D. is bringing the instant motion. The motion is being brought under Code of Civil Procedure § 36(b), which reads as follows: 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 statute contains additional language indicating that cases granted preference under subdivision (a), which applies to parties who are over age 70 and whose health is such that their interests in the litigation might be prejudiced by delay, are to be given preference over cases subject to subdivision (b) (quoted above).

Defendant Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District (the School) argues that Plaintiff is only one of three plaintiffs and thus, having only one-third of the full plaintiff-side interests in this case, is unable to establish a 'substantial interest in the case as a whole.' Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3106779 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  C.I.D. VS VALLEY CENTER-PAUMA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISCTRICT  37-2023-00039568-CU-PO-NC It appears to the Court that there is considerable discretion to be applied in whether to grant the motion – not because the statute itself is discretionary, it is not – but because the finding that needs to be made as to whether one of the three Plaintiffs has an interest that constitutes a 'substantial' interest in the case 'as a whole' requires some factual finding.

Before addressing the merits of the motion, the Court notes that this matter is also set for a Case Management Conference and an appearance is necessary for that hearing. The Court intends to set the matter for trial on a relatively short time frame and warns the parties that the trial date that is set will be especially firm – with very little justifying a trial continuance provided that the side requesting the preference (in this case, the plaintiffs-side) facilitate adequate discovery production.

To that end, the Court also notes certain aspects of the four-to-six-month time frame from the present date. The four-month time frame of the preference statute would place trial of this matter around mid-September 2024 at the latest. And, given the tight time frames of a trial preference order, the Court generally sets trial preference matters about two or three weeks before the final possible trial date in order to leave room for last-minute emergencies as needed. This would likely create significant law and motion in August, which is typically a high-travel month where counsel often do not like to begin trials.

The Court is presently setting trials for 'due course' dates in late October or early November – not too far off of the mid-September time frame in which a trial preference matter will take place. As such, and with the above issues in mind, the parties are invited to propose a realistic time frame in which this matter can be litigated (addressing estimated time for discovery, estimated needs for any summary judgment motions, and anticipated other motions that might be needed), so that a realistic and feasible trial date can be set on the shorter side that, once set, can be held firm even if the Motion for Trial Preference is denied. Upon such discussion, the Court will further consider an appropriate ruling on the motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3106779