Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21STCV42547, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42547    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: F

Natalie Tenaud, et al. vs State of California, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV42547

Hearing Date: 12/14/23 at 10:30am

Judge:  Olivia Rosales

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Breanne Rose Aguilar and Stevie Brynn Aguilar Motion for Trial Preference is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Background

This is a wrongful death, negligence, premises liability, and product liability action arising out of the death of Bryant Aguilar (“Decedent”), who was 32 years old at the time. On or about June 25, 2021, Decedent was working at a construction site located at 14044 Freeway Dr., Santa Fe Springs, CA, 90670 (“Construction Site”), tasked with building a storage facility next to a freeway. Bryant Aguilar was working on the roof, when he fell through the roof of the storage facility onto the ground. Decedent passed away as a result of the incident. Decedent is survived by two minor children, Plaintiffs Breanne Rose Aguilar and Stevie Brynn Aguilar.

Plaintiffs seek an order for preference in setting of the trial date within 120 days of the hearing of the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36

Discussion

CCP §36(b) provides: “A civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.” “A party may file and serve a motion for preference supported by a declaration of the moving party that all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared.” (CCP § 36(c)(1).) “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 …” (CCP § 36(f).)

CCP § 36(b) priority is mandatory, and 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, 223-24.) “Failure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial preference for those litigants who qualify for preference . . . The express legislative mandate for trial preference is a substantive public policy concern which [supersedes] such considerations.” (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1086-1087 [citation omitted].) “Where a party meets the requisite standard for calendar preference . . . , preference must be granted. No weighing of interests is involved.” (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 535.)

Here, Breanne and Stevie are parties to this action and are six and two years old, respectively. Breanne and Stevie, have a substantial interest in the case as a whole because they have no means for providing for themselves as they are all under the age of seven. They, and their guardian ad litem, require a settlement and/or judgment in order to provide for themselves, especially due to the fact that Plaintiffs’ father, and primary earner, has passed away.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to preference. (CCP § 36(b).) Trial is set for 120 days from the date of granting of this motion.

Moving parties to give notice.