ADAME, et al. vs NEW PHOENIX PARK I, LLC, et al.

The complaint identifies certain plaintiffs, Crystal Adames, et al. as the “Adult Plaintiffs” and other plaintiffs, King Worthy, et al., as “Minor Plaintiffs”. Minor Plaintiffs bring this motion for preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 36(b). Defendants New Phoenix Park I, LLC; Norwood Avenue Housing Corporation; John Stewart Company, and Mari Tustin (collectively “Defendants”) oppose the motion.

A party to a civil action who is under the age of 14 is entitled to preference under Code of Civil Procedure § 36(b) if the action involves claims for damages for wrongful death or personal injury, unless the Court finds the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole. A motion for preference may be filed after all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared. (Code Civ. Proc. § 36(c).) Preference under this section is mandatory, not discretionary. (Peters v.

Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 224.) Where preference is mandatory, '[t]he trial court has no power to balance the differing interests of opposing litigants in applying the provision.' (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085.) Based on the collective papers, there is no dispute that the Minor Plaintiffs are under the age of 14 and are asserting claims for personal injuries allegedly caused by substandard conditions at the subject properties.

Defendants argue the motion should be denied because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that all essential parties have been served with process. Defendants argue Plaintiffs must affirmatively identify the essential parties in the moving papers. Defendants contend the units involved in this action are owned by separate entities and that Plaintiff has failed to properly identify and name all of the owner entities. However, Defendants fail to cite any authority indicating Plaintiffs must expressly identify the essential parties and affirmatively show that all such parties have been named.

By its express terms, Code of Civil Procedure § 36(c) only requires Minor Plaintiffs to provide a declaration representing that “that all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared.” Minor Plaintiffs have provided such a declaration. Based on Defendant’s contentions there are other owners, it appears there may be other entities Plaintiffs could have elected to join as defendants. However, Defendant has failed to provide any authority explaining why those entities are essential parties that Plaintiff was required to name and serve before this

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003412: ADAME, et al. vs NEW PHOENIX PARK I, LLC, et al. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

motion may be filed. As Plaintiff argues in reply, Plaintiff is not required to name potential, nonessential defendants.

Defendants also argue the motion is premature because the pleadings are not at issue, no defendants have appeared, the identity of all potentially responsible parties remains unresolved, and no discovery has been conducted. Again, however, Defendants fail to cite to any authority to support this argument. It is unclear why the pleadings would need to be at issue, why potential non-essential defendants that Plaintiff has not elected to name need to be identified, or why discovery must commence before the Court can evaluate whether the Minor Plaintiffs are under the age of 14, whether they are asserting claims for personal injuries or wrongful death, and whether they have a substantial interest in the action as a whole.

Defendants further argue that Minor Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate they have a substantial interest in the action as a whole. Code of Civil Procedure § 36(b) requires the Court to grant preference unless the Court finds the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole. In contrast, if a party over the age of 70 is seeking preference, subdivision (a) of section 36 requires a court to make an express finding the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole before preference may be granted.

Given the difference in the language used by the Legislature, the Court finds subdivision (b) of section 36 does not require the moving party to make an affirmative showing that the party has a substantial interest in the whole. The burden is instead on parties opposing the motion to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the moving party does not have a substantial interest in the whole. Defendants argue that the Minor Plaintiffs’ claims arise from distinct tenancies and different conditions at multiple addresses and that the Minor Plaintiffs only have an interest in their unit-specific claims, not in the action as a whole.

Notably, in Koch-Ash v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 692 the Court found that “12 of some 391 plaintiffs in 47 pending consolidated civil actions . . . seeking damages against several state and county agencies for injuries to their residential properties and collateral injuries resulting from slow-moving landslides” had an interest in the action as a whole where the claims were based on common allegations that the defendants were negligent in planning and developing the residential area and drainage systems.

Thus, the mere fact that plaintiffs reside in different properties at different addresses and suffered separate injuries does not prevent a plaintiff from having a substantial interest in an action as a whole. Here, the Minor Plaintiffs’ claims are based on common allegations that Defendants failed to properly maintain and/or repair their units, resulting in similar, widespread substandard conditions that caused personal injuries to the Minor Plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot find the Minor Plaintiffs lack a substantial interest in the whole.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003412: ADAME, et al. vs NEW PHOENIX PARK I, LLC, et al. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

Finally, Defendants argue that if the motion for preference is granted, preference should be limited to the specific Minor Plaintiffs. However, the Legislature has determined that preference is extended to the entire civil action, not to the individual moving plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc. § 36(b); Koch-Ash v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 699.) Thus, the Court has no authority to limit the scope of preference. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the civil action is entitled to preference. The motion is granted.

Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 36(f), trial must be scheduled on a date within 120 days of the hearing. The hearing on this motion is scheduled for April 17, 2026. Thus, trial must be scheduled on or before Monday, August 17, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 12a, 36(f).) Trial is set for August 4, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 17A. A mandatory settlement conference is set for July 13, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 450.

This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003412: ADAME, et al. vs NEW PHOENIX PARK I, LLC, et al. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

Office and an official reporter will be provided.