Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV38182, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 22STCV38182    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jose Guadalupe Rodriguez’s unopposed motion for preferential trial setting is granted.

Plaintiff Jose Guadalupe Rodriguez (“Jose Guadalupe”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for an order setting a priority trial date the instant action more than 120 days from the date of this order.  (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§36, 36.5.)  Plaintiff moves on the grounds that at 89 years old he is over the age of 70 and his health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing his interest in the litigation.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 7, 2022, against his son, Defendant Jose Juan Rodriguez (“Jose Juan”) (“Defendant”) for causes of action for financial elder abuse and fraud relating to Defendant’s alleged actions in designating himself power of attorney over Plaintiff and using a quitclaim deed to give himself title to Plaintiff’s Property and subsequently selling Plaintiff’s property.  (See Complaint.)  Plaintiff filed the instant motion on February 8, 2023.  As of the date of this hearing, Defendant has not filed an opposition.

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 he has a substantial interest in the action as he is the sole named plaintiff and has shown that his health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interests.  (See Decl. of Thompson, Exhs. A, B.)  This evidence is sufficient.  The Court finds that (1) the party has a substantial interest in the action, and (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.

Dated:  April 14, 2023

Hon. Daniel P. Ramirez

Judge of the Superior Court