Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV03728, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03728    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Betania Rios; Fernando Ramirez; Zayd Ramirez, by and through Guardian Ad Litem, Fernando Ramirez; Zia Ramirez, by and through Guardian Ad Litem, Fernando Ramirez; and Zayra Ramirez, by and through Guardian Ad Litem, Fernando Ramirez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on February 13, 2024 against Defendants Evil Woody, LLC and Weststar Property Management, Inc. (jointly, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) negligence, and (3) nuisance.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that this case is “about the gross dereliction of duties of landlords that rendered the dwelling of 5 Plaintiffs unfit for human habitation and detrimental to their health and safety. Defendants EVIL WOODY, LLC, WESTSTAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50 (collectively, ‘Defendants’) and each of them, owned, operated and/or managed the residential property located at 435 W. 11th Street, Long Beach, California 90813 (‘the Property’).” (Compl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs allege that “there existed at the Property materially defective conditions affecting the habitability thereof.” (Compl., ¶ 21.)

Trial in this matter is currently set for September 17, 2025.

Plaintiffs now move for preference in setting a date for trial. Defendants oppose.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (b) provides that “[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 civil action subject to subdivision (a) shall be given preference over a case subject to this subdivision.”

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (f), “[u]pon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or a party’s attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record. Any continuance shall be for no more than 15 days and no more than one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party.” 

Plaintiffs state that the instant motion “is made pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code section 36(b) on the grounds that named minor plaintiffs ZAYD RAMIREZ; ZIA RAMIREZ; and ZAYRA RAMIREZ…are under the age of 14, have suffered personal injuries and, in their capacity as plaintiffs have a substantial interest in the pending action.” (Mot. at p. 2:5-8.)

Plaintiffs submit the Declaration of Fernando Ramirez, who states, inter alia, that “I am a plaintiff in this action. I am the biological father and guardian ad litem of minor plaintiffs in this action who are under the age of 14. They are: Minor ZAYD RAMIREZ; Date of Birth (‘DOB’): 12/12/2018; Age 5. Minor ZIA RAMIREZ; DOB: 1/8/20: Age 4. Minor ZAYRA RAMIREZ; DOB: 6/25/21: Age 3.” (Ramirez Decl., ¶ 2.) Fernando Ramirez states that “[m]y children, minor plaintiffs ZAYD RAMIREZ, ZIA RAMIREZ, and ZAYRA RAMIREZ have resided at the subject property at 435 W. 11th Street, Long Beach, California 90813 (‘Property’) from on or about May 2021 to present.” (Ramirez Decl., ¶ 3.) Fernando Ramirez states that Zayd Ramirez, Zia Ramirez, and Zayra Ramirez “suffered personal injuries due to the uninhabitable conditions at the Property.” (Ramirez Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.)

In the opposition, Defendants state that they “do not dispute the Minor Plaintiffs are under the age of fourteen (14),” but argue that “[t]he Minor Plaintiffs do not have a substantial interest in the action as a whole.” (Opp’n at p. 3:15-16.) Defendants contend that “Plaintiff Fernando Ramirez and Plaintiff Betania Rios (‘Adult Plaintiffs’) are the two adult tenants in the present action and are the parties responsible for the Minor Plaintiffs’ residency at the Subject Property as well as for the rental payments at the Subject Property. Undoubtedly, the Adult Plaintiffs are the in fact the [sic] parties with a substantial interest in the action.” (Opp’n at p. 3:20-23.) The Court is not persuaded by this argument and finds that Plaintiffs have shown that Zayd Ramirez, Zia Ramirez, and Zayra Ramirez have a “substantial interest in the case as a whole.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (b).)

Zayd Ramirez, Zia Ramirez, and Zayra Ramirez are plaintiffs in the instant action. Moreover, as discussed, Fernando Ramirez states in his supporting declaration that Zayd Ramirez, Zia Ramirez, and Zayra Ramirez “suffered personal injuries due to the uninhabitable conditions at the Property.” (Ramirez Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) Fernando Ramirez further states that “[d]ue to the uninhabitable conditions at the subject Property, minor Zia Ramirez suffered from headaches, sneezing, coughing, diarrhea, stomach pain, fever, anger, anxiety, constipation, tongue inflammation, eye irritation and emotional distress. Minor Zia Ramirez took medication and received medical treatment for the physical symptoms, among other places, at MemorialCare Medical Group, 2110 N Bellflower Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90815.” (Ramirez Decl., ¶ 5.) Fernando Ramirez also states that “[d]ue to the uninhabitable conditions at the subject Property, minor Zayd Ramirez suffered from headaches, sneezing, coughing, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain, fever, irritated [sic], anger, anxiety, and emotional distress. Minor Zayd Ramriez took medication and received medical treatment for the physical symptoms at Memorial Care Medical Group, 2110 N 22 Bellflower Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90815.” (Ramirez Decl., ¶ 6.) In addition, Fernando Ramirez states that “[d]ue to the uninhabitable conditions at the subject Property, minor Zayra Ramirez suffered from headaches, sneezing, coughing, diarrhea, stomach pain, fever, irritated [sic], anger, anxiety, and emotional distress. Minor Zayra Ramirez took medication and received medical treatment for the physical symptoms at MemorialCare Medical Group, 2110 N Bellflower Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90815.” (Ramirez Decl., ¶ 7.)

In the opposition, Defendants also assert that “[a]ll information pertaining the [sic] alleged injuries suffered by the minor children have come from their attorney and their father Fernando Ramirez, there is no supporting evidence from any medical professional or from the Minor Plaintiffs’ own physician(s) who allegedly treated the Minor Plaintiffs for these injuries.” (Opp’n at p. 4:5-8.) However, Defendants do not cite to any legal authority demonstrating that Plaintiffs must provide evidence from medical professional in order to show that the minor plaintiffs “have a substantial interest in the case as a whole” for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (b).

Defendants also cite to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (e), which provides that “[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.” Defendants contend that they “will be prejudiced should the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CCP § 36(e).” (Opp’n at p. 4:14-15.) But Plaintiffs do not move for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (e). As discussed, Plaintiffs assert that trial preference should be granted in this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (b).

Defendants also argue that “permitting the accelerated trial date would severely and unduly prejudice the Defendants. Presently, there have been no depositions scheduled, and the parties have not even attempted mediation, despite the April 15, 2024 Status Conference regarding Completion of Mediation.” (Opp’n at pp. 4:27-5:2.) The Court notes that Defendants do not submit any evidence to support the argument that they would be prejudiced if the instant motion is granted.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that trial preference is warranted here under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (b).

Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for trial preference is granted. The Court sets trial for ______________, 2025, at ______ a.m. The Final Status Conference is set for ____________, 2025, at ______ a.m., and the trial readiness and exhibit binders must be lodged in Department 50 by 4 p.m. on __________, 2025.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this Order. 

DATED:  November 20, 2024                       ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court