Kaila Vazquez vs. Noe Samuel Sibrian-Nerazo

Plaintiff Kaila Vazquez alleges injuries arising from the subject accident. Specifically, she alleges that she suffered a significant aggravation to a pre-existing condition, i.e., pseudotumor cerebri, also called idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Prior to the collision, Ms. Vazquez had a lumboperitoneal shunt installed on September 19, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that prior to the subject collision of October 26, 2020, the shunt was operating normally but that after the subject collision, Plaintiff experienced swelling, leaking cerebral spinal fluid, and pain at the operation site, all of which were new onset symptoms arising after the subject collision.

Ms. Vazquez sought care for these post-collision symptoms, and it was determined that the lumbarperitoneal shunt had rotated from its proper position, and that the rotation was causing the cerebral spinal fluid leak which was causing the other symptoms. Ms. Vazquez underwent extensive surgery on December 31, 2020 to repair the leaking lumbar shunt, and has required multiple additional hospitalizations and surgeries over the course of this litigation.

Defendants have sought to depose Ms. Vazquez since December of 2024 without success. On June 16, 2025, counsel for Defendant Placer County proposed continuing the trial date due to, inter alia, the difficulty in deposing Ms. Vazquez. The parties stipulated to a trial continuance, and the Court referred the parties back to Trial Setting Process. Trial was scheduled for November 30, 2026.

The parties explored the possibility of settlement in February and March 2026. Ultimately, those efforts were unsuccessful.

Plaintiff was scheduled to undergo an additional surgery on July 10, 2026. She believes she will be able to sit for her deposition, with conditions, after July 24, 2026.

Since the case was filed on October 6, 2021, Plaintiffs state that the five-year deadline to bring this case to trial “may run as early as October 6, 2026,” prior to the currently scheduled November 30th trial.[2]

Accordingly, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking trial preference.

Discussion

Plaintiffs move for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (e) (“Section 36(e)”) “as the trial date is beyond the 5-year statute.” (Mem. of P.&A. ISO Mot. (“MPA”) 2:1-2.) Plaintiffs argue:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309367-CU-PA-GDS: Kaila Vazquez vs. Noe Samuel Sibrian-Nerazo 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

Since the backlog created by the COVID 19 pandemic, Sacramento County Superior Court has been forced to contend with a heavily impacted civil calendar. Case in point, when this matter was continued on October 10, 2025, and returned to the trial setting process, the ultimate date assigned for trial was over a year thereafter. The reasonable presumption for this long delay in trial setting was that the court’s trial calendar was too burdened to bring the matter to trial in under a year. This appears to continue to be a problem for the courts as Sacramento County Superior Court appears to currently be setting trials for the middle of 2027. [Citation.]

(MPA 6:9-16.)

Defendant County of Sacramento filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion, and the Sibrian- Sanchezes have not filed an opposition to the motion.

Defendant City of Citrus Heights (“Citrus Heights”) opposes the motion, rejoining that Plaintiffs waited six and a half months to file the instant motion after learning that the assigned trial comes after the 5-year statute, and granting preference will severely prejudice Defendants due to their inability to depose Plaintiff Kaila Vasquez. (Opp’n 2:4-11.) Citrus Heights argues:

Ms. Kaila Vasquez still has not been deposed and there is the issue of her ongoing medical care. Defendants also still need to schedule an independent medical examination after Plaintiff’s deposition to assess the alleged exacerbation from this minor accident as well as subpoena key medical records for this ongoing treatment Defendants are just learning about. Plaintiffs chose the current trial date, . . . led Defendants to believe months ago that a settlement was near, abruptly changed their mind at the proverbial 11th hour, and then made this request for the trial date to actually be moved up foreclosing Defendants the opportunity to conduct the remaining discovery necessary to prepare the case for trial. This is improper and bordering on gamesmanship.

(Opp’n 2:17-25.)[3]

Plaintiffs reply:

Although Plaintiff[s] agree[] with [Citrus Heights] that obtaining the deposition of [Plaintiff Kaila Vasquez] has been rendered so

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309367-CU-PA-GDS: Kaila Vazquez vs. Noe Samuel Sibrian-Nerazo 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

difficult[] by [her] ongoing significant health problems, that it has been functionally impossible, impracticable, or futile to date, those genuine health barriers are not “gamesmanship.” The parties received the trial date when Plaintiff’s counsel was finishing trial in Santa Clara County; when Plaintiff’s counsel became aware of the potential conflict with the 5 year statute he reached out to his client and was advised of his client’s interest to seek informal settlement at that time in light of her worsening health conditions. [Citation.]

Thereafter, Plaintiff[s] and Defendant[s] engaged in good faith negotiations. [Citation.] Ultimately, Plaintiff[s] rejected the proposed settlement amount and, realizing that the matter would need to proceed to trial, Plaintiff[s’] counsel proceeded with the instant motion. [Citation.] This delay, while unfortunate, was not done maliciously, or for the purpose of prejudicing any party.

(Reply 4:17-28.)

Under Section 36(e), “the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (e).) One ground for seeking trial preference under Section 36(e) “is that the 5-year dismissal statute is about to run.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026 Update) ¶ 12:259.) “Although the approach of the five-year limit is a critical consideration in ruling on motions pursuant to [Section 36(e),] it is not exclusive.” (Salas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 342, 346.)

[A] motion for a preferential setting [under Section 36(e)] raises the same issues for the trial court as a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] section 583(a): In passing upon the motion for an early and preferential setting, the court was not limited to a consideration of the single fact that the five-year period was about to expire but was required to view the total picture, including the dilatory action of the plaintiff, the condition of the court’s calendar, the rights of other litigants, and the prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay. [Citations.] The action of the court on such a motion is tantamount to action upon a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute; in each instance the motion is addressed to its sound legal discretion; the motivating factors in the exercise of that discretion would be pertinent to both motions; and its decision will be disturbed only in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309367-CU-PA-GDS: Kaila Vazquez vs. Noe Samuel Sibrian-Nerazo 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

cases of manifest abuse.

(Salas, supra, at p. 346 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Nye v. 20th Century Ins. Co. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1041, 1045.) Courts particularly emphasize “‘the condition of the court calendar, dilatory conduct by plaintiff, prejudice to defendant of an accelerated trial date, and the likelihood of eventual mandatory dismissal if the early trial date is denied.’ [Citation.]” (Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th 424, 441.)

“[T]he policy favoring trial or other disposition of an action on the merits [is] generally to be preferred over the policy that requires dismissal for failure to proceed with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of an action . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.130; Salas, supra, at p. 347 [“[T]he interests of justice weigh heavily against disposing of litigation on procedural grounds . . . .”].)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown their entitlement to trial preference under Section 36(e). Although Plaintiffs did delay in moving for trial preference after the current trial date was scheduled, they have provided a reasonable explanation for that delay, i.e., Plaintiffs’ desire to try to settle the litigation and Kaila Vazquez’s continuing medical difficulties. Further, this is clearly not a case that Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute from the outset.

Also, the Court is not persuaded that setting trial before October 6, 2026 will prejudice Citrus Heights. To the extent the parties are unwilling to stipulate to extend the 5-year deadline, alternative remedies are available to complete any remaining discovery before the commencement of trial, such as extending the discovery deadline or conducting discovery on shortened time.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the policy promoting the disposition of cases on their merits should prevail.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for trial preference is granted.

The parties shall appear at the hearing on the motion to select trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates before October 6, 2026.

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.)

[1] Plaintiffs have dismissed Defendants City of Sacramento, County of Placer, and City of Roseville. [2] Plaintiffs maintain that the running of the 5-year statute of limitations should be tolled. However, without tolling or extension, they state the statute appears to run on October 6, 2026. (MPA 6:6-8.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309367-CU-PA-GDS: Kaila Vazquez vs. Noe Samuel Sibrian-Nerazo 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

[3] To the extent Citrus Heights also argues that the moving papers fail to expressly aver that “all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared,” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 36(c)(1), the Court finds that such an express averment is unnecessary in this case given Plaintiffs’ recitation of the action’s procedural history in the supporting Memorandum of Points & Authorities. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (c)(1) [“Unless the court otherwise orders: (1) A party may file and serve a motion for preference supported by a declaration of the moving party that all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared.”].)

*** 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 Office and an official reporter will be provided. ***