Mallett vs. City of Santa Ana

Any outstanding jury fees are due within 10 court days of this order or will be deemed waived. (See Civ. Proc. Code, § 631.)

Plaintiff to give notice.

12 Krishnamoorthy vs. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication The Irvine Company, LLC The court CONTINUES Defendants THE IRVINE COMPANY LLC, IRVINE PARK WEST APARTMENTS LLC, and IRVINE MANAGEMENT COMPANY’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication to September 4, 2026, at 9:30 am in Dept. W8.

In support of their motion, Defendants submit surveillance footage of the incident as Exhibit I to the Declaration of James C. Truxaw (ROA 110) and rely on that footage in support of Defendant’s Separate Statement Nos. 14-19. Exhibit I provides only a link to a DropBox folder that the court is unable to access.

Similarly, the Dropbox link to the surveillance footage provided by Plaintiffs in their opposition (ROA 183) is also inaccessible to the court.

The parties SHALL have five days from this ruling to lodge the surveillance footage referenced in their respective filings on a thumb/flash drive.

No further briefing permitted.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

20 Mallett vs. City of Specially set @ 1:30 pm: Santa Ana Motion for Trial Preference Pitchess Motion

1. Motion for Trial Preference

The court DENIES Plaintiff ROSE MARIE MALLETT’s motion for a preferential trial setting within 120 days pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 36(a) permits a party who is over 70 years of age to petition the court for trial preference, which the court must grant if it makes both of the following findings:

(1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole; and (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.

In support of the motion, the moving party’s attorney may submit the supporting affidavit based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of the moving party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36.5.)

If the court finds a party meets the requirements of section 36(a), it cannot balance conflicting interests of opposing litigants. (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085 [finding trial preference under Section 36 can operate to truncate the discovery rights of other parties].) But courts have recognized that “the due process implications of this approach have not yet been decided.” (Roe v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 642, 643 n. 2; See also Peters v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 227 [noting but not deciding due process issue potentially raised by mandatory trial preference].)

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiff failed to establish that her health condition warrants a trial preference and that a trial preference would impact Defendants’ due process rights. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s lack of genuine need for a trial preference is evidenced by Plaintiff having withdrawn an earlier motion for a trial preference and by Plaintiff failing to have this motion heard earlier.

Here, Plaintiff is 80 years of age, born on 8/30/45. (Schoening Decl., ¶2, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff, the only Plaintiff in this action, has a substantial interest in this personal injury action.

As to whether Plaintiff’s health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudice to her interest, Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration concluding that a trial preference is necessary given Plaintiff’s age and health and that he understands Plaintiff has “become depressed”, “has little desire to do anything”, “is not sleeping well” and has “had memory issues”. (Schoening Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel also states that Plaintiff has been diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. (Schoening Decl., ¶ 5, Exhs. 1 and 2.)

It appears from the documents attached to counsel’s declaration that the diagnosis was made on 12/14/25 via a telephone appointment (id., Exh. 1) and that in a prior visit with a physician on 11/14/25, Plaintiff complained of a “10 month history of depressed mood and anhedionia after her son passed away” (id, Exh. 2.)

The court further notes that Plaintiff filed this action on 5/9/25 (well over a year ago) and withdrew a prior motion for trial preference she had filed on 9/10/25 (ROA 23), supported by a declaration of counsel asserting the same ailments. The prior motion was apparently withdrawn so that Plaintiff could add a new defendant – Officer LUIS CASILLAS. (Mov. Pts. & Auth. at p. 3, lines 10-15.)

There is no showing of any change in Plaintiff’s health from the time of the prior motion and the filing of the instant motion for a trial preference.

The court finds Plaintiff’s showing to be insufficient to show that a preferential trial setting is necessary to avoid prejudicing her interest in this litigation. While the court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s ailments and health conditions, Plaintiff has not established that Plaintiff’s health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing Plaintiff’s interest in this litigation.

As such, the motion is DENIED.

The scheduled 4/26/27 jury trial remains.

Defendant to give notice.

2. Pitchess Motion

On 5/8/2026, the court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for Pitchess discovery (as to the issue of excessive force only). The court then set the in-camera review hearing for 8/7/26, which was thereafter continued to 8/14/26 pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. (Stip. & Order, filed 5/13/26 [ROA 148].)

The parties should therefore be prepared to proceed with the in-camera review hearing at 1:30 pm, on the issue of excessive force only.