Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV10330, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10330    Hearing Date: April 3, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from allegations of elder financial abuse in connection with the sale of Plaintiff’s residential home in January 2020. 

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff Ginger Drinkwater (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against Defendants Stewart Title of California; Sound Equity, Inc.; Palms Blvd Venice Beach, LLC; Gold Constructors; Wiltchik Appraisers; Andre Wegner; Douglas Sanchez; Dee Brothers; Jed Wiltchik; and DOES 1 to 99 (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging ten causes of action as follows:

1.     Elder Financial Abuse

2.     Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation of Fact/Deceit

3.     Bad Faith—Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

4.      Conversion

5.     Constructive Trust

6.     Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

7.     Negligence

8.     Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200

9.     Declaratory Relief

10.  Wrongful Foreclosure

Plaintiff now moves for trial preference.  The motion is unopposed.[1]

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 36 provides in part: “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 [and] (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.”

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (f), “Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or a party’s attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record.  Any continuance shall be for no more than 15 days and no more than one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party.” 

A court may not be excused from setting the trial for preference due to court congestion.  (Sprowl v. Superior Court (Raymark Industries) (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 777, 781.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that trial preference is warranted because Plaintiff, who is 90 years old, suffers from multiple serious medical conditions, including a history of severe sepsis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and multiple falls that have required hospitalization and nursing care.  (Garcia Decl. ¶¶ 10-11, 13 and Ex. B.)  Specifically, on September 22, 2019, Plaintiff suffered a serious fall at home, where she was found on the floor hours later by her son, Jafiel Drinkwater, and then transported to UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center for hospitalization, where she was diagnosed with sepsis and dehydration.  (Ibid.)  Imaging records indicate osteopenia, degenerative spine disease, and previous fractures.  (Ibid.)  As a result, Plaintiff suffers decreased mobility, chronic pain, and a heightened risk of falling.  She also suffers low serum albumin levels, which is linked to a reduced lifespan.  (Ibid.) 

Moreover, Plaintiff has exhibited cognitive and physical difficulties during deposition testimony, requiring frequent breaks and accommodations.  (Garcia Decl. ¶ 14.)  Plaintiff has struggled to recall events and become disoriented and fatigued during legal discussions.  (Garcia Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.)  Plaintiff has experienced extreme distress and physical hardship from the ongoing litigation.  (Garcia Decl. ¶ 15.)

On March 5, 2025, Plaintiff consulted with Dr. Solemon Hakimi, M.D., who determined Plaintiff was experiencing cardiac arrythmia, and recommended an expedited court process.  (Garcia Decl. ¶ 12 and Ex. A.)

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is over 70 years old, has a substantial interest in the action as the sole plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation.

CONCLUSION

            For the foregoing reasons, having found Plaintiff satisfies all the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a), the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for a trial preference.  Per Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (f), the action shall be set for trial not more than 120 days from the granting of the preference motion.

            The Court notes that the jury trial is currently scheduled for June 23, 2025, second final status conference scheduled for May 23, 2025, initial final status conference scheduled for May 9, 2025, and trial readiness conference is scheduled for April 8, 2025.  As trial is currently scheduled within 120 days of the granting of this motion, this motion does not disturb those dates.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  April 3, 2025                                                          ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court