Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 24NWCV02063, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV02063    Hearing Date: October 10, 2024    Dept: F

INIGUEZ v. ANDERSON

CASE NO.:  24NWCV02063

HEARING: 10/10/24

#22

Plaintiffs’ EDGAR INIGUEZ, JR.; and ALENRRY INIGUEZ’s motion for trial preference is GRANTED.

Moving Party to Give notice.  

This motor vehicle personal injury action was filed by Plaintiffs EDGAR INIGUEZ; EDGAR INIGUEZ, JR., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Edgar Iniguez; and ALENRRY INIGUEZ, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Edgar Iniguez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on July 8, 2024.

Plaintiffs allege that “[o]n or about November 22, 2022, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Plaintiff EDGAR INIGUEZ, was operating a Chevrolet Silverado upon northbound lanes of La Mirada Boulevard…. [¶] At the time and place aforesaid Defendants, EMMA C. ANDERSON, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, so negligently, tortiously, carelessly, recklessly, wantonly and unlawfully drove, operated, maintained, conducted, controlled and entrusted said Toyota Highlander while making a left turn onto Foster Road… as to directly and proximately cause the same to run into and collide with Plaintiffs’ vehicle then and there being operated by Plaintiff, EDGAR INIGUEZ…. [¶] As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, tortious conduct, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness and unlawfulness of defendants… and the resulting collision, Plaintiffs, EDGAR INIGUEZ, EDGAR INIGUEZ, JR., and ALENRRY INIGUEZ, sustained severe and serious injuries and has had, and will in the future have, pain, suffering, worry and anxiety….” (Complaint ¶¶10-12.)

Minor plaintiffs Edgar Iniguez, Jr. and Alennry Iniquez, by and through their GAL, move for trial preference under CCP §36(b).

In Opposition, Defendant EMMA C. ANDERSON (“Defendant”) argues that preference must be denied as the minor plaintiffs do not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole, and that preferential trial setting would lead to a violation of Defendant’s due process rights.

“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.” (CCP §36(b).) If the court makes the requisite finding of fact on a motion for preference under CCP §36(b), it has no discretion to deny the motion due to the use of the word “shall” in the statute. (Peters v. Sup. Ct.) 1989 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 224-25.)

It is undisputed that Edgar Iniguez, Jr. (age 7) and Alennry Iniguez (age 9) are minors. The minor plaintiffs were passengers in their father’s (Plaintiff Edgar Iniguez) vehicle at the time of the Subject Accident.  Plaintiffs allege that the minor plaintiffs suffered injuries and emotional distress as a result of the Subject Accident. The Court does not find that the minor plaintiffs do “not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.” (CCP §36(b).)

Priority is mandatory; the trial court has no discretion to refuse the minors’ request for early setting. (Peters v. Supt. Ct. (County of Los Angeles) (1989) 212 Cal.App.2d 218, 223-224.) Defendant is not foreclosed from seeking severance, if necessary.

The Motion is GRANTED.