ALICE M. ROMERO VS LA MIRADA HEALTHCARE, LLC, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******1560    Hearing Date: January 05, 2021    Dept: 49

Hearing Date: January 5, 2021

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial Preference

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Alice M. Romero

Responding Party: Defendants La Mirada Healthcare, LLC and Jadeite Management, LLC

Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference is granted subject to COVID restrictions.

Under Code Civ. Proc. ; 36, subdivision (a), a party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age is entitled to trial preference if the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole and the health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation. An attorney’s declaration is sufficient to establish the medical diagnosis and prognosis of the party seeking trial preference under section 36, subdivision (a). (Code Civ. Proc. ; 36.5.) 

The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff is 84 years old. (Attarchi Decl. ¶ 8.) With regard to the health prong of section 36, subdivision (a), Attarchi’s declaration is a sufficient basis upon which the Court may properly find that Plaintiff’s health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation. Attarchi states Plaintiff’s various afflictions in detail, and declares that

Alice Romero is an 82 year old woman with a medical history of CVA with left sided weakness, left shoulder fracture, dementia, vision loss, history of multiple falls, history of two left hip fractures, history of diabetes atrial fibrillation, hypertension, necrotizing pancreatitis, severe muscle weakness, abscess of the left kidney causing acute renal failure, intra-abdominal abscess from ruptured intestine, multiple respiratory failures requiring at least four intubations, pleural effusion, GERD, and anemia.

(Id.)

Attarchi’s declaration further details each identified affliction and concludes that “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there exists a substantial medical doubt that Ms. Romero has more than six months to live.” (Id. ¶ 10.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause, but do not attack any of the information provided by Plaintiff’s declaring physician. Defendant merely asserts that “a moving party must present an adequate proffer of specific facts giving rise to ‘good cause’ for relief.” (Opp. 5:8-10.) As set forth above, Plaintiff has provided sufficient facts to make the requisite showing.

Defendants also make an argument that granting trial preference would violate Defendant’s due process rights “because Defendants would be unable to prepare and organize their case in such a short time frame,” and “Defendants would also be denied their statutory right to file motions for summary judgment.” (Opp. 7:17-20.) However, the granting of this motion would set trial at the latest for May 4, 2021 and adequate time remains for filing a motion for summary judgment, if appropriate. Defendants do not substantiate an argument that setting a trial date as required by CCP 36(a) would be violative of their due process rights. The difficulty in preparing a case for trial in such a short time frame is acknowledged but does not compel a different ruling.

Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference is granted subject to COVID restrictions. The specific date for trial shall be determined at the hearing on this matter.