Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2023-00045212-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 18, 2024

04/19/2024  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  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00045212-CU-BC-NC SLATTERY VS ESPOSITO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Preference, 03/15/2024

The Motion for Trial Preference brought by plaintiff Michele Slattery (Plaintiff) is DENIED.

While it is true that a motion for trial preference brought under Code of Civil Procedure § 36(a) can be supported by an attorney declaration made on information and belief (see Code of Civil Procedure § 36.5), said declaration must address 'the medical diagnosis and prognosis' of the party on which the request for preference is based. The declaration provided by counsel in this matter merely refers to the fact that Plaintiff's 'current advanced age and physicality' are '[g]iven.' Advanced age alone is insufficient to qualify for a trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure § 36(a), and 'advanced...physicality' is not a 'medical diagnosis' or 'medical... prognosis.' Nonetheless, while not entitled to the strictures and rigors of the trial preference statute on this showing, the Court notes that this matter is also set for a Case Management Conference and an appearance is necessary for that hearing. In deference to Plaintiff's age, 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 party requesting the preference (in this case, Plaintiff) 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, with August being a high-travel month where counsel often do not like to begin trials, with the Court having some lighter law and motion calendars in the month of September due to the Native American Day holday and personnel absences, and with the time for setting a motion for summary judgment requiring at least 105 days prior to trial. With those 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 in deference to Plaintiff's advanced age.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3104486