Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00451/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00451-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441bc Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1 

15cv0451 JM(JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CELIA WAKEFIELD, individually and as 

executor of the estate of Charles T. 

Wakefield, deceased, and as Trustee of the 

Wakefield Family Trust Dated April 23, 

1997, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

GLOBAL FINANCIAL PRIVATE 

CAPITAL, LLC, a Florida limited liability 

company, and G.F. INVESTMENT 

SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 15cv0451 JM(JMA) 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE 

 Plaintiff Celia Wakefield, individually and as executor of the estate of Charles T. 

Wakefield, deceased, and as Trustee of the Wakefield Family Trust Dated April 23, 1997 

(“Trust”), filed a Motion for Trial Preference (“Motion”) on July 31, 2015 (Doc. No. 23), 

asking the court to grant her trial preference and set a trial date within 90-120 days from 

the granting of the motion, due to her advanced age and health. Plaintiff has also asked 

the court to take judicial notice of various exhibits submitted in support of her motion, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. On August 31, 2015, Defendants Global 

Case 3:15-cv-00451-JM-JMA Document 30 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 7
2 

15cv0451 JM(JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Financial Private Capital, LLC (“Global Financial”) and G.F. Investment Services, LLC 

(“G.F. Investment”) filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial Preference 

(“Opposition”), and Evidentiary Objections in Opposition to (1) the Declaration of 

Timothy C. Karen; and (2) the Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Trial Preference (“Evidentiary Objections”). (Doc. No. 26). On September 8, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Opposition to Motion for Trial Preference (“Reply”). 

(Doc. No. 27). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the matters presented 

appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the 

court exercises discretion to set this matter for trial as early as practicable, considering 

the discovery and motion practice needs of the case. The court orders the parties to 

schedule a case management conference before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for the 

purpose of preparing a scheduling order, taking into consideration Plaintiff’s status. 

Additionally, the court orders the parties to expeditiously arrange for the videotaped 

deposition of Plaintiff, for purposes of discovery and preservation of testimony. 

BACKGROUND 

 On February 2, 2015, Defendants removed this action from the Superior Court for 

the State of California based upon diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 

1441(d), and 1446. The Complaint, filed on December 9, 2014, alleges eight causes of 

action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) violation of the California Consumer Legal 

Remedies (“CLRA”); (3) tort of another claim for attorney’s fees; (4) elder abuse 

(Welfare and Insts. Code § 15610, et. seq.); (5) unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. and 

Prof. Code § 17200); (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of duty to supervise; and (8) 

declaratory relief. 

Plaintiff alleges that she and her late husband, Charles T. Wakefield (collectively, 

“Wakefields”), entered into an agreement with Mr. Reid Johnson while attending a free 

financial seminar presented by Johnson. At the time, Plaintiff was in her late 80s and 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-00451-JM-JMA Document 30 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 7
3 

15cv0451 JM(JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Charles T. Wakefield was in his late 70s.1

 Plaintiff alleges that Johnson was Global 

Financial’s agent, whose advice to the Wakefields to sell their investments and to reinvest 

the proceeds in a number of unsuitable investments and insurance transactions caused 

them harm. (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 40). Plaintiff alleges damages of about $1.6 million. (Comp. 

¶ 49). Plaintiff also alleges that Johnson failed to disclose material adverse information 

to Plaintiff, and that Defendants failed to adequately supervise Johnson, as their alleged 

agent, which also caused Plaintiff harm. 

This action is related to an earlier filed action in the Superior Court for the State of 

California, County of San Diego, commenced on April 30, 2013 (Wakefield v. Reid 

Stuart Johnson, et al., 37-2013-000-046502-CU-FR-CTL, the “Johnson Action”), in 

which Plaintiff sued Johnson and not the present Defendants. Following a settlement of 

the Johnson action, Plaintiff allegedly discovered the relationship between the 

Wakefields and Defendants and filed the current action. 

Motion for Trial Preference 

 Plaintiff’s motion is based on Plaintiff’s advanced age and health conditions 

which, she submits, may prevent her from testifying at her trial. As represented in the 

Declaration of Timothy C. Karen in Support of Motion for Trial Preference (“Karen 

Decl.”), Plaintiff is 93 years old and suffers from a host of medical conditions.2

 Namely, 

Plaintiff suffers from (1) loss of vision due to macular degeneration; (2) serious hearing 

loss, requiring her to use hearing aids in both ears; (3) anxiety, which she treats with 

prescribed medication – Zoloft; (4) insomnia; (5) hypothyroidism; (6) incontinence; and 

(7) osteoporosis. (Karen Decl. ¶ 5). Plaintiff also has a history of breast cancer, which is 

                                                                

1

 Charles T. Wakefield died at age 80, and Mrs. Wakefield is currently 93 years old. 

2

 Plaintiff’s counsel represents that the information regarding Plaintiff’s health status is based upon his 

communications with Plaintiff’s health care professionals, Plaintiff herself, and his review of Plaintiff’s 

medical records. For purposes of this motion, the court has no reason to doubt the general reliability and 

accuracy of these representations as it appears that Mr. Karen has become sufficiently familiar with his 

client’s status to make these representations. As such, Defendants’ evidentiary objections to the use of 

Timothy C. Karen’s Declaration are overruled. 

Case 3:15-cv-00451-JM-JMA Document 30 Filed 09/17/15 Page 3 of 7
4 

15cv0451 JM(JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

currently in remission. (Karen Decl. ¶ 5). Finally, Plaintiff fell and broke her hip on 

January 3, 2015, and is currently recovering from that injury. (Karen Decl. ¶ 11). 

 Based on his personal observations of Plaintiff’s health conditions and his review 

of her medical records, Plaintiff’s counsel argues that trial preference is necessary in 

order to prevent prejudice to Plaintiff’s interests in this litigation. (Karen Decl. ¶ 18). 

Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel suggests that Plaintiff’s progressive macular degeneration 

may render her unable to read and recognize documents. (Karen Decl. ¶ 18). Further, as 

her hearing continues to deteriorate, so will her ability to credibly testify on her own 

behalf at trial. (Karen Decl. ¶ 18). Finally, given her condition of osteoporosis, there is a 

chance that another hip or other fracture may become life-threatening or, at the very least, 

diminish Plaintiff’s ability to testify at trial. (Karen Decl. ¶ 18).3

 

 Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion on several grounds. First, Defendants argue 

that Plaintiff’s alleged medical conditions are not supported by appropriate medical 

documentation, such as a physician’s declaration. (Evidentiary Objections ¶ 1). Second, 

Defendants correctly point out that while Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 36 allows for expedited 

trials in state court actions pursuant to the judge’s discretion, there is no federal court 

counterpart to govern this action. (Defendants’ Opposition, p. 4).4

 Defendants note that 

a party in a federal action may be able to expedite a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1657 if the 

case implicates a constitutional right under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute, but 

assert that this case implicates neither. (Defendants’ Opposition, p. 4). Third, 

Defendants argue that the moving papers are devoid of any offer of proof, should 

Plaintiff testify. (Kirby Decl. ¶ 12). Finally, Defendants argue that granting a trial date 

within 90-120 days would prejudice Defendants’ ability to conduct sufficient discovery 

and prepare for trial. Rather, Defendants offer to work with Plaintiff to schedule her 

                                                                

3

 Plaintiff’s counsel also asserts that he was granted trial preference based on Plaintiff’s age and health 

pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 36. (Plaintiff’s Exh. 1). As will be discussed, no analogous federal 

statute exists. 

4

 Plaintiff concedes this point in her Reply. (Reply, p. 2). 

Case 3:15-cv-00451-JM-JMA Document 30 Filed 09/17/15 Page 4 of 7
5 

15cv0451 JM(JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

videotaped deposition early, which would preserve her testimony and alleviate her 

concerns. (Kirby Decl. ¶ 13). 

DISCUSSION 

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 36 (“Section 36”) provides that a party 

to a civil action, 70 years of age or older, may petition the court to grant trial preference, 

and the court shall grant it if the following two conditions are met: (1) “the party has 

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.” Cal. 

Civ. Proc. Code § 36(a). This statute, the parties recognize, does not apply to federal 

actions.5

 Though Section 36 does not stretch to protect Plaintiff in this case, its spirit is 

embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1657, which authorizes a district court to exercise discretion in 

determining the order in which to hear its civil cases, and to “expedite the consideration 

of any action . . . if good cause is shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a). For the purposes of this 

provision, “good cause” is shown “if a right under the Constitution of the United States or 

a Federal Statute . . . would be maintained in a factual context that indicates that a request 

for expedited consideration has merit.” 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a). 

 Defendants argue that 28 U.S.C. § 1657 does not apply to Plaintiff’s request for 

trial preference, because this matter does not involve a right under the U.S. Constitution 

or a federal statute. Plaintiff does not dispute this point, but instead requests that the 

court exercise its general discretion to grant trial preference to Plaintiff, given her age and 

health conditions. 

 Section 36 and 28 U.S.C. § 1657 notwithstanding, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure mandate the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of all actions (Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 1.), and allow district courts considerable discretion in managing their dockets 

                                                                

5

 “While the California Code of Civil Procedure allows for expedited trial in state court actions pursuant 

to the judge’s discretion, there is no federal court counterpart which governs this action.” O’Connor v. 

Boeing North Am., Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31338, *22 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2004). 

Case 3:15-cv-00451-JM-JMA Document 30 Filed 09/17/15 Page 5 of 7
6 

15cv0451 JM(JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and determining case management orders (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16). In any action, pursuant to 

Rule 16, the court may order attorneys to appear for one or more pretrial conferences for 

the purposes of “expediting disposition of the action” and “establishing early and 

continuing control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a). 

 The court agrees with Plaintiff that an earlier trial date for this action is fair, 

reasonable, and justified for the following reasons. First, there is no doubt that Plaintiff is 

sufficiently elderly and her impaired hearing and eyesight may continue to deteriorate. 

Second, as Plaintiff submits in her reply, her testimony is relevant to the case, as she is 

expected to testify about her interactions with Johnson, Defendants’ alleged authorized 

agent, and about the “investment objectives of herself and her husband and the fact that 

they signed a contract for investment advisory services with Defendant Global 

Financial.” (Reply, p. 2). 

Therefore, while the court does not order a trial date to be set in this matter within 

90-120 days, the court declares this matter is appropriate for preferential trial setting and 

instructs the parties to schedule a case management conference forthwith.6

 

The court also orders the following: 

(1) Parties are ordered to forthwith schedule a case management conference before 

Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for the purpose of preparing a scheduling order, 

taking into consideration Plaintiff’s status; 

/// 

/// 

/// 

                                                                

6

 Other than the existence and content of court orders from the Johnson action, this order renders moot 

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice and the objections thereto. In any event, pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Evidence 201, the court could not take judicial notice of the content of any of the exhibits presented 

by Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Evid. 201 (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to 

reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) 

can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned.”). 

Case 3:15-cv-00451-JM-JMA Document 30 Filed 09/17/15 Page 6 of 7
7 

15cv0451 JM(JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(2) Parties are ordered to immediately arrange for an expedited videotaped 

deposition of Plaintiff in order to preserve her testimony for trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 17, 2015 JEFFREY T. MILLER 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00451-JM-JMA Document 30 Filed 09/17/15 Page 7 of 7