Case Number: BC614872??? Hearing Date: October 21, 2016??? Dept: 92
BRANDON LI, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
CITY OF PASADENA, et al.,
Defendant(s).
Case No.: BC614872
[TENATATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS? MOTION FOR TRIAL SETTING PREFERENCE; TRANSFERRING ACTION TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT FOR ALL FUTURE PROCEEDINGS1. Background Facts
Plaintiffs, Brandon and Bryan Li filed this action against Defendants, City of Pasadena and Kidspace: A Participatory Museum for damages sustained when a tree fell on them at Defendants? property.
2. Motion for Trial Setting Preference
Plaintiffs move for trial setting preference pursuant to CCP ?36(b), which provides:
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.
Defendants oppose the motion. Defendants argue (a) Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show they have a substantial interest in the litigation and (b) Defendants? due process rights would be violated if preference were granted.
a. Substantial Interest in Litigation
Defendants? first argument is that Plaintiffs failed to show they have a substantial interest in the litigation as a whole. They correctly note that legislative history can be used as a guide when a statute is not clear and unambiguous. They argue the term ?substantial interest? is ambiguous and requires interpretation.
The Court disagrees. The two minor plaintiffs are the individuals who were personally harmed by the tree that fell on them. They have a substantial interest in the litigation. Defendants attempt to create ambiguity where there is none. This argument is rejected.
b. Due Process
Defendants? second argument in opposition to the motion is that an order setting trial within 120 days would violate Defendants? right to due process. It is true that Roe v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 642, 643 held that a trial setting order that sets a trial so early that the defendant cannot reasonably participate in discovery or prepare for trial may violate due process. The Court therein did not, however, hold that the defendant has the absolute right to demur to the complaint or to move for summary judgment. It held only that the defendant must be afforded the opportunity to meaningfully participate in discovery and prepare for trial. The Court consistently hears and manages preference cases.
Defendants are encouraged to use the ex parte application process to obtain hearing dates when necessary, and to work with Plaintiffs? counsel to ensure discovery is completed expediently. Defendants argue that the minor plaintiffs are in Hong Kong, and this may hinder Defendants? ability to participate in discovery; they fail, however, to show that Plaintiffs have not been participating in discovery. The parties are advised that the Court will not, in light of the preference status of the case, permit any party to create unnecessary delays in the discovery process.
The Court notes that the personal injury hub courts are not well-suited to handling preference cases, and the case is being transferred to an IC department for further management going forward (see below).
c. Trial Date
The Court notes the requirements of ?36(f) in determining a trial date:
(f) Upon 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.
120 days from today?s date falls on Saturday, 2/18/17. The currently-scheduled 9/25/17 trial date is advanced to today?s date and continued to Friday, 2/17/17. The currently-scheduled 9/07/17 FSC date is advanced to today?s date and continued to 2/01/17. The parties are to inquire with the newly-assigned courtroom to determine the time that courtroom schedules FSC and trial dates.
3. Transfer
Department 92 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon either the number of pretrial hearings or the complexity of the issues presented. At the direction of Department 1, this case (and the related case BC619680) is hereby transferred for all purposes to Judge Hofer in Dept. D of the North Central (Glendale) District.
Any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conference, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned IC court.