Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 25PSCV00329, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 25PSCV00329, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25PSCV00329 Hearing Date: April 8, 2025 Dept: G

Plaintiff Joy Parson’s Motion for Trial Preference Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 36

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Joy Parson’s Motion for Trial Preference Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 36 is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for elder abuse. On January 29, 2025, plaintiff Joy Parson (Plaintiff), by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Christine Helm, filed a complaint against defendants VVS1, LLC (VVS1), Virgina Garcia, (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 through 250, alleging the following causes of action: (1) elder abuse and (2) negligence. Plaintiff alleges the following. Defendant VVS1, LLC (VVS1) is a residential care facility for the elderly that operates under the name Jasmin Terrance at Yucca Valley. Defendant Garcia is the manger and CEO of VVS1. On October 31, 2024, Defendants admitted Plaintiff as she could no longer live at home alone due to her dementia. During Plaintiff’s stay at VVS1, Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff had unexplained bruising and eloped from VVS1, experiencing hypothermia as a result.

On February 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed the present motion. On February 22, 2025, Plaintiff’s process personally served this motion on Defendants. A hearing on the motion is set for April 8, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves for a court order specially setting the present action for trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 36 establishes four grounds upon which trial preference can be obtained. First, the court must grant a motion for preference in a civil action when it is brought by a party who is over seventy (70) years of age, has a substantial interest in the action, and has health issues that require preference “to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 39, subd. (a).) Second, “[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).) Third, “[i]n its discretion, the court may also grant a motion for preference that is accompanied by clear and convincing medical documentation that concludes that one of the parties suffers from an illness or condition raising substantial medical doubt of survival of that party beyond six months, and that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (d).) Fourth and last, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (e).)

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff argues for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a), because Plaintiff is 73 years old, has a substantial interest in this case, and has health issues that require preference to prevent prejudicing Plaintiff’s interest in the litigation. (Motion, p. 1:4-12.) The court agrees.

Plaintiff was born on September 1, 1951 and is currently 73 years old. (Helm Dec., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ negligence resulted in Plaintiff’s bruising, elopement, and hypothermia. (Compl., ¶¶ 17-21, 23.) Given the grounds in Plaintiff’s complaint and the declaration of Christine Helm, the court finds Plaintiff has a substantial interest in this case.

Next, Plaintiff asserts she has health issues that require preference to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation, because there is reasonable degree of medical probability the Plaintiff is unlikely to survive another six (6) months and will pass before trial if the court does not grant this motion. (Motion, pp. 1:24-5:17.) In support of Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff relies on the declaration of Shahab Attarchi, M.D. In that declaration, Dr. Attarchi opines that Plaintiff’s medical conditions have led to the rapid deterioration of Plaintiff’s health and that there is “substantial medical doubt that [Plaintiff] has more than six months to live.” (Attarchi Decl., ¶ 6.) Dr. Attarchi bases this opinion on the fact that Plaintiff has a medical history of multiple falls, hypertension, COPD, degenerative joint disease of the neck, osteoarthritis of the left hip, frequent panic attacks, anxiety, depression, and thyroid surgery. (Attarchi Decl., ¶ 8.) Dr. Attarchi also notes that Plaintiff’s COPD causes restricted airflow, which places her at a high risk of heart failure, respiratory infections, respiratory distress, hypoxia, fainting, debility, and death. (Attarchi Decl., ¶ 8.) Additionally, Dr. Attarchi notes Plaintiff is a high fall risk and suffers from severe panic attacks, both of which can lead to debility and death. (Attarchi Decl., ¶ 8.) Ultimately, Dr. Attarchi concludes that the cumulative effects of Plaintiff’s medical conditions lead to substantial medical doubt regarding whether Plaintiff has more than six months to live. (Attarchi Suppl. Decl., ¶ 10.)

Based on Dr. Attarchi’s declaration, the court finds Plaintiff has health issues that require preference to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference is GRANTED. The court intends to set the matter for trial within 120 days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 36(f).