Judge: Michael Small, Case: 24STCV03675, Date: 2024-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03675    Hearing Date: August 30, 2024    Dept: 57

Plaintiffs Hy-Netha Scott, La Fuanja Call, and minors Emperor Martin and Legend Pree, by and through their guardian ad litem Hy-Netha Scott (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), sued  Defendants MP Opportunity Partners I, LP and Bridge Management Inc. also known as Bridge Management XIII (collectively, “Defendants”) about the habitability of  residential property located at 2140 Belle St., Unit 0001, San Bernardino, California 92404 (“the Property”) that Plaintiffs leased and that Defendants owned or managed.  Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that they suffered personal injuries as a result of the conditions of the Property.

Plaintiffs move the Court for preference in setting a trial date pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 36(b) on the grounds that minor plaintiffs Emperor Martin and Legend Pree (collectively, “Minor Plaintiffs”) are under the age of 14, have suffered personal injuries, and have a substantial interest as plaintiffs in the pending action.  The Court is granting the Plaintiffs'' motion.A civil action for wrongful death or personal injury “shall be entitled to preference upon motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age” who has a “substantial interest in the case as a whole.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 36(b).)  This is a mandatory provision for priority; the trial court has no discretion to refuse the minor’s request for early setting. (Peters v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 223-224.)  If the trial court grants the motion for trial preference, the court must set the case for trial not more than 120 days from the date the motion was granted.  (Code Civ. Proc, § 36(f).)

In support of their motion for trial preference, Plaintiffs submitted the  declaration of Plaintiff Hy-Netha Scott, guardian ad litem for Minor Plaintiffs and their biological mother. (Scott Decl.)  Scott declares under penalty of perjury that Martin and Pree are ages thirteen and two, respectively, and provides their dates of birth. (Id., ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs’ attorney also attaches copies of the Applications for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem declaring the same. (Ohn Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Scott's declaration  describes the uninhabitable conditions as alleged in the Complaint and states that her children have resided at the Property since 2020. ( Scott Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Due to the uninhabitable conditions, Scott declares, Minor Plaintiffs have suffered personal injuries, including coughing, sneezing and runny nose. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Defendants counter that Plaintiffs fail to establish that Minor Plaintiffs are under fourteen. In so arguing, Defendants pay short shrift to the Scott Declaration which establishes the Minor Plaintiffs’ ages as two and thirteen. Defendants fail to provide evidence to the contrary.  Defendants also contest that Minor Plaintiffs have a substantial interest in this action, this time discounting Scott’s declaration as by a non-expert.  Defendants do not cite any precedent, however, that says that parties seeking a trial preference based on the presence of minors under the age of 14 in the case must prove the minors have a substantial interest in the case through an expert declaration.  The non-expert declarations that Plaitiffs submitted are sufficient.  As children who are alleged to have lived in  substandard conditions, Minor Plaintiffs may be able to recover substantial personal injury and general damages. (See Ohn Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)  They have a substantial interest in this case.

Because the Minor Plaintiffs are under the age of fourteen and have a substantial interest in this action as a whole, the Court is granting the Plaintiffs' motion for trial preference and sets the trial date for December 16, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.  The final status conference is set for December 6, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.  The Court is not granting Defendants' request, made through their opposition to the motion for trial preference, for an order extending certain deadlines and shortening others.  Defendants need to seek that relief through a properly noticed-motion of their own or an ex parte application.