Motion for Trial Preference
23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The motion of Plaintiff in pro per Austin Bennett (Plaintiff) to advance trial is ruled on as follows.
The notice of motion fails to provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judges department. (See Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D).) Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and/or self-represented litigants and advise them of Local Rule 1.05, the Courts tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing parties prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or by telephone.
Trial is currently scheduled for December 28, 2026. Plaintiff requests the Court advance trial to the earliest available date convenient to the Court. Defendant Sacramento County Jail, et al. (Defendants) oppose the motion. Defendants argue notice is defective because Plaintiff filed and served this motion only 10 days before the hearing. However, Defendants opposition includes arguments addressing the merits of the application. By filing an opposition on the merits, Defendants waived any defects in notice. (Bohn v. Bohn (1913) 164 Cal. 532; Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 696-698.) The Court will therefore consider the motion on its merits.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
A request to advance trial may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1335(b).)
23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
Plaintiff argues there is good cause to advance trial in light of the age of the case, the history of delay, the unresolved discovery, and the concrete prejudice already suffered.
The action was commenced on July 20, 2023. The Court agrees, as a general principle, that trials should be set as soon as possible. However, as Court resources are not unlimited, there are numerous litigants waiting in line for trial. This case is not approaching the deadline to commence trial and is not at risk of being dismissed if trial is not advanced. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that the age of the case is good cause to advance trial in front of similarly-situated litigants who have also been waiting for trial for their actions.
The history of delay and the unresolved discovery issues weigh against granting this motion. Advancing trial would reduce the amount of time available to resolve any outstanding discovery disputes and to allow the parties to prepare for trial in light of delays. These factors therefore weigh against a continuance.
Finally, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he will suffer prejudice if trial proceeds as currently scheduled. Plaintiff argues he is seeking to advance the trial date because witnesses may lose their memory and so that Plaintiff will still have access to what limited evidence exists. The potential loss of evidence as time passes is a risk that is inherent to all trials. Absent a showing that the risk of such loss in this action exceeds the risk of loss in other actions pending for trial, the general inherent risk does not constitute good cause to permit this action to proceed to trial in advance of other similarly-situated litigants. Plaintiff has not identified any witnesses who are likely to lose their memories between now and the current trial date and has not offered any explanation why Plaintiff would lose access to evidence if trial is not advanced.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show good cause to advance the trial in this action in front of the actions of similarly-situated litigants who have an equal right to having their actions tried and have been waiting patiently in the same line as Plaintiff. The motion is therefore DENIED.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)
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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
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 Courts 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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.