Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV25424, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25424    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Lisette Ackerberg’s motion for trial preference is granted.

Plaintiff’s Motion to seal certain portions of the motion for trial preference is advanced from  April 12, 2023 and granted

Plaintiff Lisette Ackerberg (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order specially setting the instant action for trial pursuant to C.C.P. §36(a) and (d).  Plaintiff moves on the grounds that at 85 years old she is over the age of 70 and her health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation

Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 18, 2020 against Defendants for causes of action for elder abuse/neglect, negligence, and financial elder abuse relating to Plaintiff’s treatment at Defendants’ Residential Care Facility of the Elderly, Atria.  Plaintiff filed the instant motion on July 21, 2020. 

C.C.P. §36(a) provides, as follows: “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. (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.”

“The clear intent of the Legislature is to safeguard litigants who qualify under subdivision (a) of section 36 against the acknowledged risk that death or incapacity might deprive them of the opportunity to have their case effectively tried and to obtain the appropriate recovery. [Citation.]” (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085.)

Plaintiff has established that she has a substantial interest in the action as she is the sole named plaintiff, and has shown that her health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interests.  (See Declaration of Robert Huizenga.) This evidence is sufficient.  The  Court finds that (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.  Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Plaintiff also moves for an order pursuant to California Rule of Court 2.551 to file under seal: (1) the following portions of Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial Preference: page 2, line 7; page 3, lines 4, 10-13, and 20-28; page 4, lines 1-20; page 6, line 10; page 7, lines 9-27; and page 8, lines 10-13; and (2) the Declaration of Dr. Robert Huizenga, M.D., who is Plaintiff’s primary care physician (together, the “Unredacted Pleadings”).

CRC 2.550(d) provides, as follows: “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(2)  The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”  Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of her right to privacy in her confidential medical information, and that the interest would be prejudiced if the records are not sealed, the sealing is narrowly tailored and there is no less restrictive way to protect her interests.  Accordingly the Motion to Seal is advanced from April 12, 2023 and granted.

Dated:  October 21, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court