DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV157538·santacruz·Civil·Referee Report Dispute
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED

HAINES v. FARLEY

CELMA FARLEY’S MOTION TO CORRECT, MODIFY, AND/OR SET ASIDE THE PROPOSED REPORT OF REFEREE

Hearing date
Jul 13, 2026
Department
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHAINES
DefendantFARLEY

Ruling

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JULY 13, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

No. CV157538

HAINES v. FARLEY

CELMA FARLEY’S MOTION TO CORRECT, MODIFY, AND/OR SET ASIDE THE PROPOSED REPORT OF REFEREE

The motion is denied. Parties to appear to discuss the status of this case in connection with the Judgment and the referee’s report and recommendations.

No. 26CV00232

LAING v. STEINBERG APPLICATION OF KIMBERLYA. DOUGHERTY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE (UNOPPOSED)

The unopposed application of Kimberly A Dougherty to be admitted pro hac vice in this matter is granted.

No. 26CV01650

REY v. BLACET

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

The motion for preference is granted.

I. BACKGROUND AND MOTION Delia Rey, who is 91 years old, (“Plaintiff” or “Rey”) filed this action for medical malpractice against Precision Physical Therapy & Fitness and Andrew Blacet (“defendants”). During a physical therapy session, Blacet allegedly let go of the gait belt used to stabilize plaintiff and she fell, breaking her right elbow and sustaining other injuries. Due to her age, surgery was not an option to repair the bone fracture and she now is unable to use her walker. She also sustained vision loss. This complaint was filed May 18, 2026, and on June 11, 2026, plaintiff filed this motion for preferential trial setting pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a).

Plaintiff seeks preference because she is over the age of 70 (91 years old), has a substantial interest in the case as she is the only plaintiff, and because of her deteriorating health.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share