A motion for trial preference is designed to ensure “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. Such a preference is not only necessary to assure a party's peace of mind that he or she will live to see a particular dispute brought to resolution but it can also have substantive consequences. The party's presence and ability to testify in person and/or assist counsel may be critical to success. In addition, the nature of the ultimate recovery can be adversely affected by a plaintiff's death prior to judgment.” (Looney v. Super. Ct. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 521, 532.)
“A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings:
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 36(a).)
“[W]here a party meets the requisite standard for calendar preference under subdivision (a), preference must be granted.” (Fox v. Super. Ct. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 535.) If the statutory requirements are met, the Court must grant the preference and set the trial within 120 days of the ruling. (Id.) “No weighing of interests is involved.” (Id.; Koch-Ash v. Super. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 692.) Any inconvenience to the court or to other litigants is irrelevant and “[f]ailure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial preference for those litigants who qualify for preference.” (Swaithes v. Super. Ct. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085.) “However, at least one court has acknowledged that its application of the preference may in some circumstances violate due process. (Roe v. Super. Ct. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 642, 643 fn. 2.)
“The express legislative mandate for trial preference is a substantive public policy concern which supersedes such considerations.” (Miller v. Super. Ct. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1200, 1205.) The purpose of section 36, subdivision (a), is “to safeguard litigants beyond a specified age against the legislatively acknowledged risk that death or incapacity might deprive them of the opportunity to have their case effectively tried and the opportunity to recover their just measure of damages or appropriate redress.” (Kline v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 512, 515.)
A motion for trial preference may also be granted where there are minor plaintiffs under age 14 years old, unless the minor does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 36(b); Peters v. Super. Ct. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 223–224.)
“In its discretion, the court may also grant a motion for preference that is accompanied by clear and convincing medical documentation that concludes that one of the parties suffers from an illness or condition raising substantial medical doubt of survival of that party beyond six months, and that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 36(d).) Under Section 36, subdivision (d), a heightened clear and convincing proof standard is required for discretionary grants of preference. (Fox v. Super. Ct. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 533-534.)
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 36(e).)
“[W]hen ruling on a motion for preference in trial setting, the trial court must consider the total picture, including the court's calendar, dilatory conduct by the plaintiff, prejudice to the defendant in the event of an accelerated trial date, and the likelihood of eventual mandatory dismissal if the request for a preferential trial date is denied.” (Mitchell v. Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1404.)
“A party may file and serve a motion for preference supported by a declaration of the moving party that all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 36(c).) A party may also file and serve a motion for preference at any time during the pendency of the action when the party reaches 70 years of age. (Id.)
“Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or a party's attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 36(f); Sprowl v. Super. Ct. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 777, 780.)
Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not explain why they would be unable at the conclusion of trial to obtain a reinstatement of an STR permit in the event one is revoked. In short, the Court agrees with the City that each of these alleged harms is either too speculative and/or can be adequately compensated in money damages or by another legal remedy.
Sep 29, 2030
Orange County, CA
., that Plaintiffs have only suffered economic damages, and further that Plaintiffs will not be able at trial to show they suffered property damage in connection with their business operations. Turner failed to do so.
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
FAHEY Judge presiding in Department 69 for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.
Feb 04, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
FAHEY Judge presiding in Department 69 for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the Motion for Order Allowing Deposition of Prisoner and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.
Feb 04, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
FILED ON 07/16/20 BY DIANA KENLOW PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required DIANA KENLOW GLORIA T SMITH Need appearances to report status Note: Trial is set for 4-21 through 4-23-2021 and 4-28 through 4-30-2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 30. ALDO RITZ BRIAN KUCHARSKI ROY N JOHNSTON CECIL W. RITZ REVOCABLE TRUST KELLY D SISNEROZ NATHAN PASTOR KELLY D SISNEROZ PETER S.
Feb 02, 2021
George
Contra Costa County, CA
RE: MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE FILED ON 11/12/20 BY NANCY SHEPSON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE If to proceed, will Need: 1. Appearances to report status 2. Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to receive notice Note: It appears this petition is now moot. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1.
Feb 01, 2021
George
Contra Costa County, CA
At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Central District, Los Angeles, the Honorable John Doyle, Judge presiding in Department 58 for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.
Feb 01, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Central District, Los Angeles, the Honorable John Doyle, Judge presiding in Department 58 for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.
Feb 01, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
If the court grants the motion for trial preference, the court must set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from the date of the hearing on the motion for preference. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).)
Feb 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Most of the cases relied by defendant on concern punitive damages at trial, after presentation of evidence, elements of proof and similar issues. At this stage, plaintiff has no obligation to prove anything. Defendant has 20 days to answer the First Amended Complaint. Case Management Conference is continued to 5/20/2021 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel are to meet and confer on the issues set forth in CRC 3.727 and 3.724 and be prepared to discuss those issues at the CMC.
Feb 01, 2021
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the West District, Santa Monica, the Honorable Craig Karlan, Judge presiding in Department N for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.
Feb 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Trial is set for November 2, 2021. Discussion The Law Office of James A. Flanagan (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff (“Client”). The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)
Feb 01, 2021
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
If the court grants the motion for trial preference, the court must set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from the date of the hearing on the motion for preference. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).)
Feb 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
If a plaintiff has pleaded several theories, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating there are no material facts requiring trial on any of them. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 889.) If the defendant meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish, by means of competent and admissible evidence that a triable issue of material fact still remains. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Id. at 850–851.)
Feb 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
Information is relevant to the subject matter if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.” Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013. Admissibility at trial is not required for information to be discoverable as the test is whether the information sought might reasonably lead to other evidence that would be admissible. Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611.
Jan 29, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
PROBATE COURT TRIAL RE: SPOUSAL PROPERTY PETN FILED ON 06/10/19 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Unable to review. File is unavailable at this time. Moving paper in Vol. 2 Laurie Schwarzrock, former conservator, still needs to do the following: 1. Appear at the hearing 2.
Jan 29, 2021
George
Contra Costa County, CA
FILED ON 10/25/19 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances...
Jan 29, 2021
George
Contra Costa County, CA
Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Snyder Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)
Jan 29, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
E of the GLENDALE Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court. Upon receipt of this notice, counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice to all parties of record.
Jan 29, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff contends there will be no prejudice by granting the motion, and the amendment will not delay trial. The motion is unopposed and granted. The trial in this action is scheduled for 8/23/21, and thus, the parties will not be prejudice by this ruling. Plaintiff is ordered to file a copy of her amended complaint within ten days. Plaintiff is ordered to serve Barreto in compliance with the Rules of Court. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
Jan 29, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The SLAPP statute reflects the Legislature's “strong preference for awarding attorney fees to successful defendants.” (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 338.) Further, the provision is broadly construed so as to effectuate the legislative purpose of reimbursing the prevailing defendant for expenses incurred in extracting herself from a baseless lawsuit. (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 443, 448.) The fee amount is left to the trial court's sound discretion.
Jan 29, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned IC court. COUNSEL ARE TO NOTE THAT EVEN IF THE CASE SUMMARY STILLS SHOWS DEPARTMENT 31 WITH FUTURE HEARINGS, COUNSEL ARE TO CONSIDER THEM TO BE OFF CALENDAR UNTIL THE NEW COURT SAYS OTHERWISE. Dated this 29th day of January, 2021 Hon Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court
Jan 29, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Dignity Health (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 203, 214; see also id. at 2818-219 [upholding trial court’s finding that if there are no acts alleged, there can be no showing that the alleged acts arise from protected activity, and that the trial court could not accept evidence based solely on what the defendant believed plaintiff’s claims are based on].)
Jan 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
As stated in CCP § 437c(l), “In an action arising out of an injury to the person or to property, if a motion for summary judgment is granted on the basis that the defendant was without fault, no other defendant during trial, over plaintiff's objection, may attempt to attribute fault to, or comment on, the absence or involvement of the defendant who was granted the motion.”
Jan 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Trial is set for January 25, 2022. 1. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Form Interrogatories Legal Standard A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories if the propounding party deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
Jan 29, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.