Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV30552, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30552    Hearing Date: August 8, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiffs Marvin Villafranco, Laureana Amaya de Romero, Alex Jesus Campos Segovia, and Izabella Campos Segovia

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Trial Preference

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs Jose Alberto Romero Garcia, Ana Maria Palacios, Alison Villafranco, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Ana Maria Palacios, Marvin Villafranco, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Ana Maria Palacios, Laureana Amaya de Romero, Nazario de Jesus Campos, Maritza Segovia, Alex Jesus Campos, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Maritza Segovia, and Izabella Campos Segovia, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Maritza Segovia (“Plaintiffs”) filed this breach of warranty of habitability action on September 19, 2022, against defendants 1242 S. Berendo LLC, Kee Hyun Kim, and Bang Ja Kim, individually and as trustee of the Mr. and Mrs. Yong Bai Kim Joint Revocable Living Trust Dated February 5, 1991.

Plaintiffs now move the court for an order designating this case as a trial preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36 on the grounds that (1) minor plaintiffs Marvin Villafranco (“Villafranco”), Alex Jesus Campos Segovia (“A. Segovia”), and Izabella Campos Segovia (“I. Segovia”) are under the age of 14 and have a substantial interest in the litigation, and (2) plaintiff Laureana Amaya de Romero (“Romero”) is over the age of 70 and their health is such that a preference is necessary to avoid prejudicing her interests in the litigation.

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, and (2) the health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).)¿ “Where a party meets the requisite standard for calendar preference under subdivision (a), preference must be granted.¿ No weighing of interests is involved.”¿ (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 535; see also Koch-Ash v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 692 [if the court makes these findings, trial preference is mandatory -- the court lacks discretion to deny the relief].)¿

Similarly, “[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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (b).)  Preference under this statute is mandatory if the party meets the requirements set forth by statute.  (Peters v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 224 [“section 36, subdivision (b) is mandatory”].)  Upon the granting of a motion for trial preference, “the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date . . . .”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).)¿

1.     Motion for Preference Filed by Plaintiffs Villafranco, A. Segovia, and I. Segovia

The court finds that minor plaintiffs Villafranco, A. Segovia, and I. Segovia have met their burden to show that they are entitled to a trial preference because they have presented evidence showing that they are under 14 years of age and have a substantial interest in this action to recover damages for personal injury.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (b).)

First, the court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that plaintiffs Villafranco, A. Segovia, and I. Segovia are “under 14 years of age . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (b); Palacios Decl., ¶ 3 [stating that Villafranco is 13 years old]; Maritza Segovia Decl., ¶ 3 [stating that A. Segovia is 13 years old, and I. Segovia is 4 years old].) 

Second, the court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that plaintiffs Villafranco, A. Segovia, and I. Segovia have (1) filed this action to recover damages for personal injury, and (2) have a substantial interest in this case as a whole.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (b).)

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs have alleged that (1) they have been exposed to unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable conditions, including mold and rodent, cockroach, and bedbug infestation, and (2) these conditions have caused Plaintiffs “significant bodily injury, [and] emotional distress[.]” (Compl., ¶¶ 31, 33-34, 59.)  Plaintiffs have also submitted the declarations of the minor plaintiffs’ guardians ad litem, in which they state that the minor plaintiffs have suffered medical conditions due to the infestations and other defects.  (Palacios Decl., ¶¶ 4-5 [Villafranco “has been diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, nasal congestion, and other respiratory infections” and “suffers from frequent coughs, rashes, itching, congestion, and allergy-like symptoms” due to vermin infestation]; Maritza Segovia Decl., ¶ 9 [the Segovia children experienced bumps and skin rashes].)  Further, each of the causes of action alleged in the Complaint are alleged by all Plaintiffs, including minor plaintiffs Villafranco, A. Segovia, and I. Segovia.  (Compl., pp. 9:11-14, 10:21-24, 13:1-3, 14:16-18, 16:4-6, 17:13-15, 19:1-3, 20:1-4 [alleging each cause of action “By Plaintiffs”] [emphasis added].)

Thus, the court finds that the allegations of the Complaint and supporting declarations establish that (1) this case is an action to recover damages for personal injury, and (2) minor plaintiffs Villafranco, A. Segovia, and I. Segovia have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.  The court therefore grants the motion as filed by minor plaintiffs Villafranco, A. Segovia, and I. Segovia.

2.     Motion for Preference Filed by Plaintiff Romero

The court finds that Romero has not met their burden to show that they are entitled to a trial preference. 

First, the court finds that Romero has met their burden to show that Romero is over 70 years of age and, as a plaintiff, has a substantial interest in this action as a whole.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a)(1); Romero Decl., ¶ 3 [“I am 74 years old”].)

Second, the court finds that Romero has not met their burden to show that their health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing their interest in the litigation.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (b).)

Romero has submitted their declaration, in which they state that they suffer from stress and high blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, and bone deficiency, for which Romero takes prescribed medications.  (Romero Decl., ¶ 9.)  Romero also states that they are concerned for their health and fear that they will develop more health conditions as a result of the defective conditions of their apartment.  (Romero Decl., ¶ 10.)

The court finds that this declaration is insufficient to establish that Romero’s health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing their interest in the litigation.  Romero has not sufficiently explained how these conditions will prejudice their ability to maintain their interest in this action.  While the court notes that it is not necessary for Romero to establish that they “might die before trial or become so disabled that [they] might as well be absent when trial is called[,]” Romero must still establish that their health is such that a preference is necessary to avoid prejudicing their interests in the litigation.  (Fox, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 534.)  The court finds that Romero’s declaration does not meet this burden.

Thus, although the court acknowledges that Romero is 74 years old and takes seriously and is sympathetic to the fact that Romero has a history of suffering from a number of medical conditions, Romero has not met their burden of showing that these health conditions are such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing Romero’s interest in the litigation, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a).

Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that Romero is over 70 years of age and has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a)(1); Romero Decl., ¶ 3.)  However, the court finds that Romero has not met their burden of establishing that their health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing their interest in the litigation and therefore denies Romero’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a)(2).)

ORDER

The court grants plaintiffs Marvin Villafranco, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Ana Maria Palacios, Alex Jesus Campos Segovia, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Maritza Segovia, and Izabella Campos Segovia, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Maritza Segovia’s motion for trial preference.

The court denies plaintiff Laureana Amaya de Romero’s motion for trial preference.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (f), the court orders that (1) trial of this entire action is advanced from October 23, 2024 to November 15, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., and (2) the Final Status Conference is advanced from October 11, 2024 to November 3, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  The court orders that the deadline to complete mediation is advanced from December 22, 2023 to October 27, 2023. 

The court orders plaintiffs Marvin Villafranco, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Ana Maria Palacios, Alex Jesus Campos Segovia, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Maritza Segovia, and Izabella Campos Segovia, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Maritza Segovia to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 8, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court