Burton vs. Orange County Department of Education

electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(c)(3); Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.251(b)(1)(B).) The court record includes no affirmative consent by the self-represented plaintiffs to electronic service.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling by non- electronic methods.

6 Burton vs. Orange Motion to Continue Trial County Department of [Typographical error corrected below (in red) – 9/10/26 at Education about 12:05 pm.]

The court GRANTS Plaintiff VERNON BURTON’s motion to continue trial.

The 10/12/26 (5-7 day jury) trial is CONTINUED to 4/12/27, at 8:45 am in Dept. W8.

All trial-related dates, including discovery and motion cut- off dates and deadlines, SHALL be based upon the new trial date.

The court has examined the factors set forth in Rule 3.1332(c) and (d) of the California Rules of Court, as they pertain to this case.

Here, discovery disputes remain pending: The depositions of Dave Connor and Sara Young remain outstanding, Defendant has moved to compel Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination, which is pending, and an IDC regarding the parties’ discovery dispute is set for 9/29/26.

While Defendant argues that the motion is moot given that the court already continued the trial date from 8/3/26 to 10/12/26, given the outstanding discovery issues, the motion does not appear to be MOOT and the court finds good cause for a further trial continuance.

The parties are ordered to meaningfully meet and confer in person on a stipulated discovery schedule for the depositions of Dave Connor and Sara Young, the extent and

scope of the mental examination of Plaintiff, and the completion of expert discovery before the 9/29/26 IDC. Any disagreements on the discovery schedule dates should be addressed and resolved at the IDC.

The parties are ordered to file a joint stipulated discovery schedule with the court for this court’s signature and approval by 10/9/26.

Plaintiff to give notice.

7 Dong vs. Bivens Motion for Trial Preference

The court DENIES Defendant KATHLEEN BIVENS’s motion for trial preference.

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.

The statute does not require “death or incapacity.” (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534 [finding trial preference appropriate where the 81-year-old plaintiff was suffering from stage 4 lung cancer, severe coronary artery disease, anemia, and other medical conditions and undergoing chemotherapy that cost significant physical and cognitive effects].) “Provided there is evidence that the party involved is over 70, all subdivision (a) requires is a showing that that party’s ‘health ... is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing [the plaintiff’s] interest in the litigation.’ (Italics added.)” (Ibid.)

Section 36 “was enacted for the purpose of assuring that an aged or terminally ill plaintiff would be able to participate in the trial of his or her case and be able to realize redress upon the claim asserted.” (Looney v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 521, 532.)

8