Flora Lloyd v. The California Home for the Aged, Inc.

(47) Tentative Ruling

Re: Flora Lloyd v. The California Home for the Aged, Inc. Case No. 25CECG05647

Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Preferential Trial Setting

Tentative Ruling:

To grant plaintiff’s motion for preferential trial date. The trial shall be set within 120 days of the hearing date for the present motion.

Explanation:

“On petition of any party over 70, [Code of Civil Procedure] section 36, subdivision (a), provides that the granting of calendar preference is mandatory in some circumstances.” (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 533 (“Fox”).)

A court must grant a trial preference under Code Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a) where the following two factors are present: (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. (Ibid.) Where a motion for trial preference is granted, the clerk shall set the case for trial not more than 120 days from that date. (Koch-Ash v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 694.)

The purpose of Code Civil Procedure section 36 is “to avoid an irrevocable loss of a qualifying plaintiff’s substantive right to a trial during his or her lifetime and to potential recovery of damages that would not survive plaintiff’s pretrial death.” (Ibid.) A motion for trial preference under subdivision (a) does not require a doctor’s declaration and “may be supported by nothing more than an attorney’s declaration based upon the information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party.” (Fox, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 534, citation omitted [explaining that an attorney declaration under Code Civil Procedure section 36.5 can consist entirely of hearsay and conclusions.]; see also Code Civ.

Proc., § 36.5 [affirming that an attorney declaration may form the basis of the motion].)

Plaintiff, Flora Lloyd, ("Lloyd" or "plaintiff") is currently 90 years old, over the qualifying age required under Code of Civil Procedure Section 36. (Kane Decl., ¶6.) The Court finds Lloyd has a substantial interest in the action, where she sustained a head injury and hip fracture, where she is suing defendant as a result of those injuries. (Kane Decl., ¶3.) The Court further finds that Lloyd's overall health is getting worse, where she recently suffered from pneumonia and sepsis (Kane Suppl. Decl., ¶4.), such that a trial preference is necessary to avoid prejudicing her interest in the litigation.

With respect to defendants argument that they will be prejudiced, "[m]ere inconvenience to the court or to other litigants is irrelevant. Failure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial 11

preference for those litigants who qualify for preference under subdivision (a) of section 36. The trial court has no power to balance the differing interests of opposing litigants in applying the provision. The express legislative mandate for trial preference is a substantive public policy concern which supersedes such considerations.” (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085-1086, internal citations omitted.)

Accordingly, Lloyd's Motion for Trial Preference is granted. Trial is to be set within 120 days of this hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 36, subdivision (f).

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: SMC on August 24, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

12