Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
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 § 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 § 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.)
(2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 535 (plaintiff entitled to trial preference under CCP §36(a) where evidence established she suffered from Stage IV lung cancer, severe coronary artery disease, deteriorating mental state and overall deteriorating health that would prevent her from participating in trial if trial preference were not granted). Plaintiffs Motion for Trial Preference is DENIED.
DARYOUSH MERAJ, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MERAJ FAMILY TRUST ESTABLISHED AUGUST 3, 1990 VS AYOUB HANASAB, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE HANASAB FAMILY TRUST ESTABLISHED OCTOBER 5, 2001, ET AL.
22SMCV00991
Feb 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Moreover, Defendant’s concern that trial preference should not be granted because Defendant has seven other trials at or near when trial would be set to if this motion is granted is meritless. This is because Defendant can seek continuances in those cases. Lastly, the prejudice that Defendant will suffer in not being able to complete discovery is not a sufficient grounds to deny this motion pursuant to the policy considerations being trial preference.
MINGZHI ZHANG VS ANNI YUN CHUNG
19STCV16125
Aug 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff therefore has not shown that she is entitled to trial preference. Moreover, trial is currently scheduled for July 10, 2023only 97 days after the hearing on this motion. Even if Plaintiff had shown entitlement to trial preference, the current trial date is well within the preferential time period. The motion for trial preference is DENIED. Moving party to give notice.
MARIA LUISA BARAJAS GASCON VS ANGELA YOLANDA DIAZ, ET AL.
20STCV46325
Apr 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
A trial preference is not necessary for that purpose. Moreover, the underlying case remains on appeal. Thus, it is not clear that a preference would further the interests of justice. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for a trial preference will be denied.
SACRAMENTO SIKU SOCIETY BRADSHAW TEMPLE VS. KAMAL S GILL INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE KAMAL S GILL AND GIAN K GILL REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
34-2011-00106587-CU-FR-GDS
Apr 19, 2012
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Thus, in Biondi, although the Court of Appeal did not directly address the issue of whether a non-individual party may move for trial preference under section 36, subdivision (e), it did direct the trial court to grant a non-individual party trial preference under that subdivision of the statute.
DONALD INTERNATIONAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS AMERICAN CUSTOMS LOGISTICS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV46492
Jan 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: 23STCV28309 Hearing Date: February 26, 2024 Dept: 52 Plaintiff Neda Alhilalis Motion for Preference in Trial Setting Plaintiff Neda Alhilali moves for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a). A party who is over 70 years old is entitled to trial preference if she has a substantial interest in the action as a whole and [t]he health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her. (CCP § 36(a).)
NEDA ALHILALI VS CLAN CO, ET AL.
23STCV28309
Feb 26, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
If Subdivision (c) granted a separate basis for trial preference any time a party is over 70 years old, there would be no purpose or effect to Subdivision (a), as parties would simply move for trial preference any time they are 70 years of age. Accordingly, the Motion for trial preference is DENIED without prejudice. Moving party to give notice.
MARI GASPARIAN VS ARAX GROCERIES & DELI INC
BC690369
Jul 20, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Upon the granting of a motion for trial preference, “the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date.” (CCP §36(f).) CCP §36.5 provides that: “An affidavit submitted in support of a motion for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party.”
EDITH MURIEL VALLELY VS PATRICIA ANN BATTEN ET AL
BC640222
Jul 07, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial Preference and to Set Trial Date Tentative Ruling: To deny plaintiff’s motion for trial preference and to set trial date, without prejudice, for failure to present any evidence showing that plaintiff’s health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc. § 36, subd. (a)(2).)
CRAFT V. NORTH POINT SURGERY CENTER, INC.
19CECG00749
May 20, 2019
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
.: BC712571 HEARING: 12/11/18 TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff LAURA ZAMORA’s motion for trial preference is GRANTED. CCP §36(e). Moving Party to Give Notice. Plaintiff, LAURA ZAMOA moves for trial preference on the grounds that Defendant ROBERT A. PESCI is over 70 years old, and his health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing Plaintiff in this litigation. In Opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacks standing to seek a trial preference based on Defendant’s age and health.
LAURA ZAMORA VS ROBERT A. PESCI ET AL
BC712571
Dec 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
.: BC712571 TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff LAURA ZAMORA’s motion for trial preference is GRANTED. CCP §36(e). Moving Party to Give Notice. Plaintiff, LAURA ZAMOA moves for trial preference on the grounds that Defendant ROBERT A. PESCI is over 70 years old, and his health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing Plaintiff in this litigation. In Opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacks standing to seek a trial preference based on Defendant’s age and health.
LAURA ZAMORA VS ROBERT A. PESCI ET AL
BC712571
Nov 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE On December 4, 2018, plaintiff Ralph Dilibero filed this action against defendant Jeannette Brown Haynes for injuries arising from a pedestrian versus motor vehicle collision occurring on October 15, 2018. Plaintiff is 92-years old and moves for trial preference. Trial is currently set for June 2, 2020.
RALPH DILIBERO VS JEANNETTE BROWN HAYNES
18STCV07523
Nov 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants allege that Plaintiffs not seeking trial preference earlier in this action reflects that such preference is not necessary. Defendants moreover argue that granting the trial preference will deny the Defendants right to discovery, while Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by keeping the current date.
MARIA R. JACOBO, ET AL. VS EARNEST GARY BROWN
20STCV34226
Aug 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Kusch (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 291, 299 [Unlike section 36, subdivision (d), where the granting or denying of a motion for trial preference lies in the sound discretion of the trial court [citations], section 36 subdivision (a), requires a trial court to give preferential trial setting to any civil case upon the motion of a party to that action who has reached the age of 70, irrespective of the circumstances leading to the motion for preference].)
WILLIAM DOYLE VS 8521 S.LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV23052
Feb 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
However, her declaration offers no evidence in support of this claim, or how it is relevant to her request for trial preference. Accordingly, the renewed motion for trial preference is denied.
GOUCH-ONASSIS, DEBORAH ELIZABETH VS FARZAM, SAEED
16K14604
Jul 17, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
The record presented by Plaintiff appears to support a trial preference under section 36, subdivision (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, but Plaintiff did not move for a preference under that subdivision.
AUDELIA MARTINEZ DE CONTRERAS VS CITY OF LOMITA, A MUNICIPALITY, ET AL.
19STCV15627
Feb 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Stated otherwise, the granting of a preference prevents not only provides for an early trial but also limits continuances of the trial date to no more than 15 days and only upon a showing of good cause. Thus, regardless of whether the trial date is currently set for a date less than 120 days after the hearing on this motion, a trial preference will more firmly cement that date.
RIC1000776
Mar 15, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Accordingly, the motion for order granting preference for setting trial is granted. The Court shall set a trial date at the hearing.
CLAIRE P. SHETZ VS TYRONE L. HUDSON, ET AL.
22STCV22211
Sep 30, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
In opposition, Defendant argues that McIntyre’s declaration is insufficient to support a granting of the trial preference. Defendant states that the pending knee surgery is not a sufficient medical basis to grant trial preference, and such trial preference is only granted in cases where the elderly plaintiff is suffering from some sort of terminal illness or mentally debilitating condition.
MARIELOUISE TANNER VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ET AL
BC672787
May 29, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
s ("Flynns") motion for a trial preference pursuant to CCP 36(a) and (c) is DENIED for the reasons set forth below. This is an action for breach of contract and fraud regarding the sale of a business. Trial in the action is set for August 13, 2012. Flynns seek a preference under CCP 36(a) and (c). Plaintiffs and cross-defendants do not oppose a preference.
AHVRAM BETTIN ET AL VS MARY FLYNN ET AL
34-2011-00115920-CU-BC-GDS
May 08, 2012
Sacramento County, CA
Contract
Breach
Plaintiff has demonstrated that his health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing his interest in the litigation. Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for trial preference is GRANTED. Trial is scheduled for February 28, 2020. The Final Status Conference is scheduled for February 4 2020. Moving party to give notice.
GREGORY RAMOS ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS DANIEL REYES PENA, ET AL.
19STCV28674
Nov 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
An affidavit submitted in support of a motion for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36.5.) “The issue under subdivision (a) is not whether an elderly litigant might die before trial or become so disabled that she might as well be absent when trial is called.
BEATRIX ARCHINAL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV02537
Mar 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
His general physician states Plaintiff is of an advanced age and has sustained severe injuries justifying a trial preference. Accordingly, under subdivision (a), trial preference is mandatory. The Motion for trial preference is GRANTED. The current trial date of April 5, 2019 is advanced to this date and continued to November 13, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 7.
GLEN GEORGE WILLIAMS VS THE VONS COMPANIES INC ET AL
BC678595
Jul 19, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff should address whether Omorian will be part of his case, and how a trial preference can be granted if a defendant is yet to be served with the complaint and was not served with the trial preference motion. Accordingly, the Motion for trial preference is DENIED without prejudice. Moving party to give notice.
RONALD LINDERMAN VS TYAN INC ET AL
BC716862
Aug 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements to support a claim for trial preference. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to show that her health is such that a trial preference is necessary to avoid prejudice.
AZIZ RASHTIAN VS PAT CHUNG HOM ET AL
BC698747
Jul 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
On April 1, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a). On April 22, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion for trial preference to August 14, 2020. On June 3, 2020, the Court advanced the hearing on the motion for trial preference to July 24, 2020. Trial is set for May 5, 2021.
AHMED NEDJAR, ET AL. VS DEAN MILTON BUGENHAGEN, ET AL.
19STCV39901
Jul 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
In opposition, defendant contends that plaintiff’s interest is not prejudiced and that plaintiff’s health does not necessitate a trial preference. Defendant contends that plaintiff will not benefit from a trial preference because she needs time to recover from her surgery. She has not appeared for her deposition, which was set for May 23, 2017 and continued to June 6, 2017. Defendant contends that he will be prejudiced if a trial preference is granted because plaintiff has not appeared for her deposition.
GUADALUPE CARILLO ET AL VS GUANNAN WANG
BC651428
Jun 23, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Motion for Trial Preference Plaintiff seeks trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36 subdivisions (a), (b), and (e). Subdivision (a) states: 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: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.
NORA DARLIN HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS SOLA IMPACT FUND II-SPV, LLC, ET AL.
21STCV19372
Jan 10, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
“Failure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial preference for those litigants who qualify for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36. . . . 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, 1086-1087 (citation omitted).) DISCUSSION Plaintiff is 89 years old. (Weiss Decl., ¶ 1.)
BENITO CRUZ, ET AL. VS ABEL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.
19STCV03982
Jul 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff must advance her own declaration, or declarations from medical providers, to support her request for a trial preference. The Court also notes that trial is set for June 4, 2019, per stipulation of the parties. As the parties stipulated to set trial for 132 days from this hearing date, the Court sees little necessity of trial preference in this matter, since a trial preference would advance the case only twelve (12) days.
DENISE BOUTER VS BARKER MANAGEMENT INC ET AL
BC708273
Jan 23, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
An affidavit signed by an attorney based on information and belief as to the medical diagnoses and prognosis of a party may only be filed by a moving party who is over 70 years old and who is seeking trial preference under Section 36(a). Code Civ. Proc., § 36.5. The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s request for trial preference under Section 36(d).
DANIEL FLORES VS JONG KIM ET AL
BC647317
Apr 21, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Plaintiffs' motion for a trial preference pursuant to CCP 36(a) is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below. The instant case is currently set for trial in May. In the event trial does not go forward at that time, this matter shall be set for trial on or before July 17, 2009. (CCP 36(f)). This is plaintiffs second motion for a trial preference. Earlier a preference was sought based upon the condition of plaintiff Anna Marie Wong.
KWOCK BIN WONG VS. SUNBELT RENTALS INC
34-2008-00000945-CU-PA-GDS
Mar 11, 2009
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Plaintiff's motion for a trial preference pursuant to CCP 36(b) is GRANTED. In accordance with CCP 36(f) this matter must be given a trial date on or before June 23, 2010. Plaintiff through her guardian ad liteum seeks a trial preference on the ground she is under the age of 14 (she is 7) and has a substantial interest in this litigation.(CCP 36(f)).
LACEY MAYS VS. PACIFIC OAKS APARTMENTS
34-2008-00018485-CU-PO-GDS
Feb 19, 2010
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff’s counsel argues that if preference is not given, her health is such that her rights may be prejudiced. (Alfaro Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.) Plaintiff argues that even though the preferential trial date is not much sooner than the current trial date, trial preference designation will prevent Defendant from requesting an additional trial continuance. Defendant argues Plaintiff should be precluded from moving for trial preference because she waited approximately one and one-half years to do so.
DORIS ANN FILLER VS CHARLES RAMSDELL
BC677053
May 21, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants argue Plaintiff has not shown a trial preference is necessary, and trial preference would deprive Defendants of due process. Plaintiff submitted an attorney declaration and a physician declaration attesting to his health problems and likelihood of a short life expectancy. The Court finds that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing Plaintiff’s interest in the litigation. The Court advances the trial date from March 22, 2021 to March 20, 2020.
SHAOUL MOSHI VS ROBERT ENRIQUE BENAVIDES, ET AL.
19STCV33781
Nov 27, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Jaramillo Motion for Trial Preference Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 36(a), (c), (e) and (f) and Cal. Rule of Court 3.1335 and Setting a Trial Date Within 180 Days of This Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court grants the motion for a trial preference but sets the trial 120 days from the date of the hearing.
SANDRA STEINBERG VS JOHN J. JARAMILLO, ET AL.
19STCV30890
Feb 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE On September 25, 2018, Plaintiff May Fong Wang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Pei Qin Kwan (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an April 30, 2017 automobile versus pedestrian collision. Trial is currently set for March 25, 2020. Plaintiff moves for trial preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 36, subdivision (a).
MAY FONG WANG VS PEI QIN KWAN
BC723353
Jun 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs’ motion for trial preference is GRANTED.
MILAGROS QUINTO ESPENA, ET AL. VS 523 S. WESTMORELAND LLC, ET AL.
19STCV41510
Apr 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
Smith The motion for trial preference of Dublino is GRANTED. The motion for trial preference of Stephens is GRANTED. The motion for trial preference of Witcher is GRANTED. The motion for trial preference of Shadmirzadi is DENIED. The motion for trial preference of Silvey was DROPPED. The court has emailed a lengthy tentative decision to counsel.
ROUNDUP PRODUCTS CASES
JCCP004953
Dec 03, 2020
Alameda County, CA
In opposition, Defendants argue that Hovhnnisyan’s declaration is insufficient to support a granting of the trial preference. Defendants state that the above stated conditions do not show a sufficient medical basis to grant trial preference. Finally, Defendants argue that they will be prejudiced should the trial preference be granted. The Court first notes that the defendants’ purported prejudice is not a ground for denying this motion.
SRBUI SARAFYAN VS GEVORK TUTUNJIAN ET AL
BC695976
Jun 27, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion for Trial Preference Moving Party: Plaintiff Livius Galio Responding Party: Defendant SSC Newport Beach Operating Co. LP; SSC P): Defendant SSC Beach Operating GP, LLC and Scott Meppen Ruling: Plaintiff Livius Galio’s Motion for Trial Preference is GRANTED. The trial shall be set for June 3, 2019. This date is 119 days after the hearing on February 4, 2019. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 36 (a), Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for trial preference.
GALIO VS. FLAGSHIP HEALTHCARE CENTER
30-2018-01017674-CU-PO-CJC
Feb 04, 2019
Orange County, CA
At a November 13, 2020 trial setting conference, the Court scheduled trial for October 18, 2021. On December 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed this Motion for trial preference .
DUONG A TRAN ET AL VS BENIGNO RODRIGUEZ ET AL
BC710704
Jan 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
LACMTA contends that an expedited trial date will not permit it to complete discovery in this matter. In reply, Barragan notes that if trial preference is granted, trial must be set no later than May 12, 2021, and currently, trial is set for May 5, 2021. In light of that fact, the Court is not inclined to grant trial preference. The parties have represented that they are diligently pursuing discovery and that much discovery has already been completed.
CHRISTOPHER BARRAGAN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC690275
Jan 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 36. Also on March 20, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference to May 18, 2020. On April 20, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference to July 2, 2020. Trial is set for July 29, 2021.
IRVIN WALLACE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS COMMUNITY CORP. OF SANTA MONICA, ENTITY TYPE UNKNOWN
20STCV03749
Jul 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff argues both her health and that of Cabal could prejudice her interests in this action if trial preference is not granted. (Coletti Decl., ¶ 4.) No opposition was filed. There is good cause for trial preference based on Plaintiff’s age, interest in this action, and deteriorating health condition, including injuries and multiple surgeries arising out of the subject-accident. The Motion for trial preference is GRANTED.
MERCEDES LUGA VS WELLINGTON M CABAL, ET AL.
19STCV16631
Jul 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff established that his health is not expected to improve, and preference is necessary to prevent prejudice to his interest in the litigation. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference. Trial is advanced from May 6, 2020 to April 8, 2020 and the Final Status Conference is advanced from April 22, 2020 to March 25, 2020. Moving party to give notice.
RAUL MORENO VS MIRIAM G CENTENO ET AL
BC700902
Dec 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
It is doubtful whether Plaintiff will have the physical and mental capacity, or be alive, to testify under oath and/or recover an awarded judgment if not granted trial preference. (Ramirez Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendants contend Plaintiff has not met his burden of proving a medical condition that makes trial preference necessary.
RICHARD STRAUSS, IN AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, AMY HONEYWELL VS THE TERRACES AT VIA VERDE - A MEMORY CARE COMMUNITY,, ET AL.
22STCV06486
Jul 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
“Failure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial preference for those litigants who qualify for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36. . . . 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, 1086-1087 [citation omitted].)
ABBY H. FRIEDMAN VS KEYVAN SHIRAZI M.D., ET AL.
21STCV23992
Sep 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
YC058023 Christopher Trejo’s Motion for Trial Preference TENTATIVE RULING Christopher Trejo’s Motion for Trial Preference is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff moves for a trial preference pursuant to CCP § 36(e) and (f).
CHRISTOPHER TREJO VS. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL
YC058023
Jan 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Donna Lee Scoular RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Earl Mendes Hyman TRIAL DATE: Not Set. MOTION: (1) Motion for Trial Preference Tentative Rulings: (1) Plaintiffs Motion for Trial Preference is GRANTED. Trial to be set in late March or early April depending on trial counsels schedules I. BACKGROUND A. Factual On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff, Donna Lee Scoular (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Earl Mendes Hyman (Defendant), and DOES 1 through 50.
DONNA LEE SCOULAR VS EARL MENDES HYMAN, ET AL.
23TRCV01712
Nov 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
While that may be the case, Defendants’ interest is not sufficient reason to grant trial preference where Plaintiff has not shown that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation.[4] Accordingly, the court DENIES the subject motion for a trial preference without prejudice.
DOROTHY J POSNICK VS FRONT PORCH COMMUNITIES OPERATING GROUP
BC668389
Oct 03, 2017
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. (Id., subd. (f).) There is no dispute that Craig is over the age of 70 or that he has a substantial interest in this litigation. Rather, the dispositive issue is whether Craig Feagins’s health requires a trial preference.
CRAIG FEAGINS, ET AL. VS BETH MCCAUGHEY ZAREM, ET AL.
19STCV02466
Jan 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff moves for trial preference on the grounds that she is over the age of 70 and her health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing Plaintiff’s interest in the litigation.
ESTATE OF RICHARD SALZBERG, ET AL. VS CSE SAFEGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY
19STCV46964
Jul 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
On June 30, 2020, the Court denied a motion for trial preference Plaintiff had filed on May 27, 2020. On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 36. On October 27, 2020, the Court advanced the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference to November 13, 2020. Trial is set for July 19, 2021.
RACHEL MONCADA VS ANGELS TRANS, INC., ET AL.
19STCV09432
Nov 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Before Trial (TRG 2000) § 12:247.4.) Defendant did not do so. Also, a plaintiff moving for a trial preference under subdivision (a) does not have to show that she is likely to die or become incapacitated before the case goes to trial if a preference is not granted. “Section 36, subdivision (a), says nothing about ‘death or incapacity.’
PAMELA MENAGH VS. MENNONITE BRETHREN HOMES, INC
23CECG02710
Nov 02, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Upon the granting of a motion for trial preference, “the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).) It is well established that, when a plaintiff is entitled to trial preference, “[m]ere inconvenience to the court or to other litigants is irrelevant. . . . The trial court has no power to balance the differing interests of opposing litigants in applying the provision.
MICHAEL LA PORTA, ET AL. VS DAVID W. AFFELD, ET AL.
19STCV28515
Dec 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff argues that trial preference is warranted pursuant to CCP 37, which mandates trial preference where a plaintiff is seeking damages caused by the defendant during the commission of a felony for which the defendant has been convicted. Here, Mr. Hendrick was convicted of a felony for the child sexual abuse of Plaintiff, and thus Plaintiff argues that preference must be granted.
JOHN DOES 31 VS. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
34-2015-00178264-CU-PO-GDS
Dec 14, 2015
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE On February 14, 2019, Plaintiff Gwendolyn Harris (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Freeman Med. Towers, Inc., Ethan Christopher, LLC, Grabel Management LLC, Linton Financial, LLC, Garamax, LLC, and Linton Management, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for negligence and premises liability. Trial is set for August 30, 2020. Plaintiff moves for trial preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a).
GWENDOLYN HARRIS VS FREEMAN MED. TOWERS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV05463
Jun 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The conclusory statement that plaintiffs life expectancy is uncertain is not sufficient to warrant a trial preference under CCP § 36(a). It follows that plaintiff has not made a showing that the interests of justice will be served by granting a trial preference pursuant to CCP § 36(e).
ALMA SAVOY VS WEST GARDENA POST ACUTE, ET AL.
23TRCV04205
Mar 13, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 36 , subdivision (a). Trial is set for December 17, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST S ] Plaintiff as ks the Court to set a preferential trial date because Plaintiff is 89 years old and has underlying medical problems .
DEAN HALL VS MARILYN MCINTYRE
20STCV23263
Dec 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Searing has also demonstrated that she is over 70 years old and has health conditions such that preference is necessary to avoid prejudice. Plaintiff is thus entitled to trial preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a). Accordingly, the motion for order granting preference for setting trial is granted.
AMOROSO PLACE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JOHN FABIAN BEVER, AN INDIVIDUAL
22STCV05698
Aug 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff moves for a trial preference under CCP 36(a) and 36(e). Defendant opposes preference on the ground that plaintiff has failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for preference and plaintiff cannot make such a motion on defendant's behalf. Plaintiff's motion for preference is DENIED for the reasons set forth below. Plaintiff seeks trial preference in this automobile accident case under both CCP 36(a) and 36(e).
EDUARDO DEL TORO VS. AMBROSIO RAMIREZ FRANCO
34-2010-00069054-CU-PA-GDS
Aug 04, 2011
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
The affidavit is not admissible for any purpose other than a motion for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36.” “Failure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial preference for those litigants who qualify for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36 . . . . The express legislative mandate for trial preference is a substantive public policy concern which supersedes such considerations.” Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.
JERALYN SMITH VS THE WILSHIRE COMSTOCK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATI
BC657456
Sep 27, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
(2) Motion for Trial Preference Plaintiff Sally Emr moves for trial preference pursuant to CCP § 36(a). Defendant Lifttech Elevator Services, Inc. opposes the motion. A reply was filed.
SALLY EMR VS THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION ET AL
BC657601
Oct 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Nor does the court finds that given the fact the case was filed just this year that a preference would further the interests of justice. Accordingly, the court will deny defendants' motion for a trial preference.
BETTY HAMMOND VS. HOME DEPOT USA INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION
34-2009-00032679-CU-PO-GDS
Apr 24, 2009
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a) is mandatory. “Where a party meets the requisite standard for calendar preference under subdivision (a), preference must be granted. No weighing of interests is involved. [footnote omitted.]” ( Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 535.) Under section 36(f), a Court must set the trial date for no more than 120 days from the finding.
DANUSHA REMBAUM VS BRISTOL FARMS
19STCV14789
Jan 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The trial date in this matter was set when the complaint was filed. (Jacobs Decl., ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiffs’ counsel declares he has observed Plaintiff’s mental and physical abilities are “slipping” and that she will be unable to testify on her own behalf to support her case if trial preference is not granted. (Jacobs Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6.) Defense counsel agreed he would not oppose this Motion for trial preference. (Jacobs Decl., ¶ 8; Exh. 1.)
ROSE GLASS VS AMERICAN AIRLINES INC
BC683657
Jun 12, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Based on these same facts, trial preference would serve the interests of justice.
STANLEY W. LEVY, ET AL. VS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
22SMCV01323
Nov 10, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants argue they will suffer prejudice if a preferential trial date is granted and note difficulties in obtaining Plaintiff’s medical records. However, where the two prongs of subdivision (a)(1) and (a)(2) are met, trial preference is mandatory. Defendants request that if trial preference is granted, the Court set a discovery schedule that would allow percipient witness discovery until two weeks before the trial date and that expert discovery remain open until trial.
DUONG A TRAN ET AL VS BENIGNO RODRIGUEZ ET AL
BC710704
Nov 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 692 (reversing the trial Court’s order to stay an action which was entitled to a mandatory trial preference and commenting that when an individual qualifies for a preference under Section 36(a) no discretion is afforded to the Court to deny a preference). Plaintiff Alan Naito moves for trial preference on pursuant to CCP § 36(a) based on Plaintiff’s age and health condition.
ALAN NAITO ET AL VS CENTEX HOMES REALTY COMPANY ET AL
BC698756
Aug 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
On April 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a). Trial is set for January 1, 2022. PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting preference and setting of trial in the above entitled action no later than 120 days after the granting of this motion. Defendant filed opposing papers May 10, 2021.
SUSSANNA MARTIROSYAN VS VIVA TRANS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV26382
May 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On April 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a). Trial is set for January 1, 2022. PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff asks the Court f or an order granting preference and setting of trial in the above entitled action no later than 120 days after the granting of this motion. Defendant filed opposing papers May 10, 2021.
JESUS SANDOVAL VS ANTONIO ACUNA, ET AL.
20STCV46382
May 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, declarations concerning plaintiff’s medical condition in support of a motion for preference pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 36(a) may be brought on information and belief and may be based entirely on hearsay and conclusions. (Fox. v. Sup. Ct. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534.) Plaintiff seeks a trial preference pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. 36(a), which permits a party who is over 70 years of age to petition the court for trial preference.
GAIN VS. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.
30-2019-01114508
Feb 06, 2020
Orange 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).) The Court finds good cause to grant this motion to grant preference, given Plaintiff’s age and health conditions, based upon the declarations of Marc Cohen, M.D. and Devin K. Binder, M.D.
WILBERT SAUNDERS VS TONY JOEY CRUZ JR ET AL
BC679873
Nov 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The motion for trial preference is GRANTED. The trial date in this matter shall be addressed at the hearing of the motion.
YOLENY DE LA PAZ TORRES CRUZ, ET AL. VS JONATHAN AZIZZADEH, M.D., ET AL.
21STCV36088
Mar 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 692 (reversing the trial Courts order to stay an action which was entitled to a mandatory trial preference and commenting that when an individual qualifies for a preference under Section 36(a) no discretion is afforded to the Court to deny a preference). Plaintiff moves for a trial preference pursuant to CCP § 36(a), based on Plaintiffs age and health condition.
MARY HISAKO MORISHITA VS GARDENA TRANSIT, ET AL.
23TRCV01126
Mar 11, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion for Preference The Court grants Plaintiff Juana Gonzales’ Motion for Trial Preference. The Court sets trial for December 2, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C32. Mandatory Settlement Conference is set for November 22, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in the same department. The Court overrules Defendant’s objection nos. 1-6. Plaintiff moves for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36 (a) and (e).
GONZALES V. KARLTON RESIDENTIAL CARE CENTER
30-2019-01075213
Aug 12, 2019
Orange County, CA
The Court also finds that it is credible that an 85 year-old person’s memory will begin to fade, such that his interest in the litigation would be prejudiced if a trial preference is not granted. As such, the motion for a trial preference setting trial to commence no later than 120 days from this date is GRANTED.
LAD S. LENGYEL, ET AL. VS RICHARD SCHLANDER, ET AL.
19STCV08504
Dec 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff Myung Soo Han’s Motion for Trial Preference is DENIED. Han seeks trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36 subdivision (a) or (e). Subdivision (a) provides: 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: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.
MYUNG SOO HAN VS VERITY HEALTH SYSTEM OF CA INC ET AL
BC647082
Aug 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 36. Trial is set for April 5, 2022. PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff as ks the Court to set a preferential trial date because Plaintiff is ninety years old and has debilitating injuries.
ELAINE S KARR VS LAURA E SHAAYA, ET AL.
20STCV38318
Mar 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
DISCUSSION Motion for trial preference Plaintiff seeks a trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36 subdivision (a), which provides: “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: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.
VIVIAN REGINA JACKSON VS MARNA HEALTH SERVICES, INC, ET AL.
19STCV27249
Dec 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
.: BC692480 Hearing Date: October 23, 2018 [TENTATIVE] order RE: plaintiffs’ motion for trial prefErence BACKGROUND In this action, Plaintiffs Rita Taylor and Sheryl Taylor (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that Rita Taylor was injured due to a slip and fall that occurred on property owned or controlled by the named defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint for personal injuries and damages on February 2, 2018. Plaintiffs move for trial preference and trial setting pursuant to CCP §36(a).
RITA TAYLOR ET AL VS RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS INC ET AL
BC692480
Oct 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Despite Defendants’ arguments to the contrary, the Court finds that Plaintiffs qualify for a trial preference.
PAUL TUZZOLINO VS WINDSOR TWIN PALMS HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV47447
Sep 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts that his health is declining, making preference necessary to prevent prejudice to Plaintiff. This is sufficient to establish entitlement to trial preference. Defendants have not filed an opposition to this motion. Plaintiffs motion for trial preference is GRANTED. The Court will set the trial date at the hearing.
ABNOS BOGHOSIAN VS LORETTA MARKARIAN, ET AL.
23STCV09928
Aug 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference. Trial is currently set for July 31, 2018. Legal Standard CCP § 36(a) states: A party to a civil action who is over the age of 70 years may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.
ISABELLA LUBOMIRSKI VS PCAL BB INC
BC648559
Aug 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
This section “is mandatory; accordingly . . . the trial court does not have discretion to deny trial preference to a party under 14 who has a substantial interest in the litigation.” ( Id. )) A motion for trial preference “may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application.” (CRC 3.1335(b).)
DOROTHY GRANT VS SHLOMO RECHNITZ, ET AL.
21STCV16420
Jul 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Motion for Trial Preference Zaric seeks trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36 subdivision (a) or (e). Subdivision (a) provides: 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: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
18STCV11788
Jul 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion Plaintiff moves for trial preference on grounds that she is over 70 years old, has a substantial interest in this action, and her health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudice. Plaintiff contends her medical condition has worsened since the court heard the first motion for trial preference on November 10, 2021. Plaintiff also indicated this motion would be moot if the court denies Defendants motion to set aside default.
MARY J KLING INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEE VS 170 CLIFFWOOD LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC, ET AL.
21STCV29728
Jul 12, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
“Failure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial preference for those litigants who qualify for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36. . . . The express legislative mandate for trial preference is a substantive public policy concern which supercedes such considerations.” Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1086-87 (citation omitted).
PEARL STERLING VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC715660
Nov 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
On January 27, 2021 , Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 36. Trial is set for May 6 , 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST S ] Plaintiff as ks the Court to set a preferential trial date because Plaintiff is 75 years old and has underlying medical problems .
LEONARD TYRONE HIBBLER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS WILBUR NOBUO SATO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
19STCV14948
Feb 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff Nahida Kattuah's motion for trial preference is GRANTED. In accordance with CCP 36(f) this matter must be given a trial date on or before April 6, 2017. This is a trip and fall action. Plaintiff moves for mandatory trial preference pursuant to CCP 36(a).
NAHIDA KATTUAH VS. CAPITAL J PROPERTIES LLC
34-2016-00198016-CU-PO-GDS
Dec 06, 2016
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff's motion for trial preference is DENIED. Plaintiff moves for preference pursuant to CCP 36. To obtain preference under CCP 36(a) a party must be over the age of 70, have a substantial interest in the litigation and suffer from a health condition such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.
ROBERT WOOTEN VS. EDMUND G BROWN JR INDIVIDUALLY AND IN OFFICIAL CAPACITIES
34-2015-00175440-CU-MC-GDS
May 11, 2015
Sacramento County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Plaintiff Sue Desborough's motion for a trial preference is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to continue trial currently set for June 21, 2010 is DENIED. In light of the fact that preference were granted under CCP 36(f) this matter must be given a trial date on or before July 16, 2010. As noted above, the case is currently set for trial on June 21.
LEONARD DESBOROUGH VS GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
05AS05415
Mar 10, 2010
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Also, a plaintiff moving for a trial preference under subdivision (a) does not have to show that she is likely to die or become incapacitated before the case goes to trial if a preference is not granted. “Section 36, subdivision (a), says nothing about ‘death or incapacity.’
STELLA BOYAJIAN VS. DIANE BOYAJIAN
22CECG01133
Oct 13, 2022
Fresno County, CA
(1986) 42 Cal.3d 342, a case involving a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (d) for discretionary trial preference. Plaintiff’s motion is for mandatory trial preference under subdivision (a). Also, the pandemic does not prevent written discovery to be completed expeditiously, and depositions can be taken remotely. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference. Jury trial is set for January 24, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.
KATHRYN RICE VS WINDSOR THE RIDGE REHABILITATION CENTER, ET AL.
21STCV20950
Oct 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The present motion is a motion for trial preference brought by plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a) and (e). Plaintiff argues he is over 70 and suffers from health conditions which warrant a trial preference, including that he is a paraplegic as a result of the incident and his condition is worsening, so that he will be prejudiced if trial is not set preferentially.
BERNAL VS HIGHSHAW M.D.
RIC2003600
Apr 12, 2021
Riverside County, CA
On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a). Trial is set for October 19, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff asks the Court for a preferential trial date to be set within 120 days from the date Plaintiff’s motion is granted because Plaintiff’s age and health necessitate an expedited trial.
JANICE WEINER VS MOY-FINCHER-CHIPPS SURGERY CENTER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV13750
Oct 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
“Failure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial preference for those litigants who qualify for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36. . . . The express legislative mandate for trial preference is a substantive public policy concern which supercedes such considerations.” (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1086-1087 (citation omitted).)
AMY MARY LOMELI VS KORY ALVIN CHAN
BC695873
Mar 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The evidence establishes that his health and age are such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing his interest in the litigation. Granting preference here is necessary to ensure he can participate in the trial while his health permits. This motion for trial setting preference is GRANTED . The parties are to meet and confer on a trial setting order. Trial is scheduled for December 11, 2023 at 9 a.m. The final status conference is scheduled for November 27, 2023 at 9 a.m.
LORENZO M. RUIZ, SR., ET AL. VS 3M COMPANY, ET AL.
23GDCV00516
Aug 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, Plaintiff qualifies for trial preference under CCP §36(a), and the motion is GRANTED. Conclusion Plaintiff qualifies for trial preference under CCP §36(a), and the motion is GRANTED. At the hearing on the motion, the parties shall be prepared to discuss a trial date within the 120 day parameter. Plaintiff shall give notice. The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio.
ROSA BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. VS WELLTOWER OPCO GROUP, ET AL.
21STCV09839
Sep 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.