CHARLES, et al. vs WELLQUEST ELK GROVE, LLC, A UTAH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

Plaintiffs assert Charles is 73 years old, has a substantial interest in the action as a named plaintiff who is the brother of Decedent and observed the alleged neglect of Decedent. The

25CV014386: CHARLES, et al. vs WELLQUEST ELK GROVE, LLC, A UTAH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 10/24/2025 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 47

motion is supported by a declaration from Counsel who, based on information and belief obtained from medical records and consultation with a licensed physician, declares Charles suffers from a variety of health conditions that place Charles in a precarious position and increase the chance of mortality.

Defendants argue Charles does not have a substantial interest in the litigation as a whole because he is a named plaintiff on only two of the causes of action. No party cites to case law providing guidance on how the Court should determine whether a plaintiff has a substantial interest. Although Charles is not a named plaintiff for claims brought by Decedent’s successor-in-interest, the same nexus of facts support all causes of action asserted in the complaint and there is no indication that Charles suffered lesser damages than the other plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, the Court finds Charles has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.

Defendants argue the declaration of Counsel in support of the motion is also devoid of sufficient information regarding Charles’ prognosis to support a finding that preference is necessary. Upon review, Counsel did not merely provide a list of diagnosed ailments with no discussion of how those ailments warrant preference. Rather, Counsel’s declaration includes discussion as to how the comorbidities significantly increase Charles’ risk of death and future surgery. Preference is proper where a party has good reason for concern that deteriorating health will impact the party’s ability to participate in trial. (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 535.) Based on the information provided by Counsel, the Court finds there is sufficient evidence to establish Charles’ health is such that preference is necessary to avoid prejudice.

Finally, Defendants argue the nature of the claims necessitate a regular discovery period. However, as noted above, the “trial court has no power to balance the differing interests of opposing litigants in applying the provision.' (Swaithes, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 1085.) The Legislature determined the timelines for preference and discovery. To the extent Defendants believe more time is needed for discovery in certain preference cases, Defendants’ arguments must be directed to the Legislature. Moreover, even if the Court could balance the parties’ respective interests, based on the information presented, the Court is not persuaded the parties will be unable to complete discovery if they treat this action as one entitled to preference.

The motion is granted. Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 36(f), trial must be scheduled on a date within 120 days of the hearing. The hearing on this motion is scheduled for October 24, 2025. Thus, trial must be scheduled on or before Monday, February 23, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 12a, 36(f).) Trial is set for February 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 47. A mandatory settlement

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV014386: CHARLES, et al. vs WELLQUEST ELK GROVE, LLC, A UTAH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 10/24/2025 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 47

conference is set for January 7, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 59.

This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. 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.