Motion for Preference in California

What Is a Motion for Trial Preference?

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.)

Legal Standard

“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.
  2. The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.”

(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.)

Procedure

“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.)

Rulings for Motion for Trial Preference in California

(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.

  • Name

    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.

  • Case No.

    22SMCV00991

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MINGZHI ZHANG VS ANNI YUN CHUNG

  • Case No.

    19STCV16125

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

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.

  • Name

    MARIA LUISA BARAJAS GASCON VS ANGELA YOLANDA DIAZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV46325

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    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

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00106587-CU-FR-GDS

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2012

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.

  • Name

    DONALD INTERNATIONAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS AMERICAN CUSTOMS LOGISTICS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV46492

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

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).)

  • Name

    NEDA ALHILALI VS CLAN CO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV28309

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MARI GASPARIAN VS ARAX GROCERIES & DELI INC

  • Case No.

    BC690369

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2018

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.”

  • Name

    EDITH MURIEL VALLELY VS PATRICIA ANN BATTEN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC640222

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2017

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).)

  • Name

    CRAFT V. NORTH POINT SURGERY CENTER, INC.

  • Case No.

    19CECG00749

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

.: 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.

  • Name

    LAURA ZAMORA VS ROBERT A. PESCI ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC712571

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

.: 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.

  • Name

    LAURA ZAMORA VS ROBERT A. PESCI ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC712571

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

[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.

  • Name

    RALPH DILIBERO VS JEANNETTE BROWN HAYNES

  • Case No.

    18STCV07523

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

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.

  • Name

    MARIA R. JACOBO, ET AL. VS EARNEST GARY BROWN

  • Case No.

    20STCV34226

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2021

  • County

    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].)

  • Name

    WILLIAM DOYLE VS 8521 S.LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV23052

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    GOUCH-ONASSIS, DEBORAH ELIZABETH VS FARZAM, SAEED

  • Case No.

    16K14604

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AUDELIA MARTINEZ DE CONTRERAS VS CITY OF LOMITA, A MUNICIPALITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV15627

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

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.

  • Case No.

    RIC1000776

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2022

Accordingly, the motion for order granting preference for setting trial is granted. The Court shall set a trial date at the hearing.

  • Name

    CLAIRE P. SHETZ VS TYRONE L. HUDSON, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV22211

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MARIELOUISE TANNER VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC672787

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2018

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.

  • Name

    AHVRAM BETTIN ET AL VS MARY FLYNN ET AL

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00115920-CU-BC-GDS

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2012

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.

  • Name

    GREGORY RAMOS ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS DANIEL REYES PENA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV28674

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

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.

  • Name

    BEATRIX ARCHINAL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV02537

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

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.

  • Name

    GLEN GEORGE WILLIAMS VS THE VONS COMPANIES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC678595

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2018

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.

  • Name

    RONALD LINDERMAN VS TYAN INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC716862

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

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.

  • Name

    AZIZ RASHTIAN VS PAT CHUNG HOM ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC698747

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2018

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.

  • Name

    AHMED NEDJAR, ET AL. VS DEAN MILTON BUGENHAGEN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV39901

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

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.

  • Name

    GUADALUPE CARILLO ET AL VS GUANNAN WANG

  • Case No.

    BC651428

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2017

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.

  • Name

    NORA DARLIN HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS SOLA IMPACT FUND II-SPV, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV19372

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    BENITO CRUZ, ET AL. VS ABEL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV03982

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2019

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.

  • Name

    DENISE BOUTER VS BARKER MANAGEMENT INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC708273

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2019

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).

  • Name

    DANIEL FLORES VS JONG KIM ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC647317

  • Hearing

    Apr 21, 2017

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.

  • Name

    KWOCK BIN WONG VS. SUNBELT RENTALS INC

  • Case No.

    34-2008-00000945-CU-PA-GDS

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2009

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)).

  • Name

    LACEY MAYS VS. PACIFIC OAKS APARTMENTS

  • Case No.

    34-2008-00018485-CU-PO-GDS

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2010

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.

  • Name

    DORIS ANN FILLER VS CHARLES RAMSDELL

  • Case No.

    BC677053

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2019

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.

  • Name

    SHAOUL MOSHI VS ROBERT ENRIQUE BENAVIDES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV33781

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2019

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.

  • Name

    SANDRA STEINBERG VS JOHN J. JARAMILLO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV30890

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

[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).

  • Name

    MAY FONG WANG VS PEI QIN KWAN

  • Case No.

    BC723353

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2019

Plaintiffs’ motion for trial preference is GRANTED.

  • Name

    MILAGROS QUINTO ESPENA, ET AL. VS 523 S. WESTMORELAND LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV41510

  • Hearing

    Apr 21, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    ROUNDUP PRODUCTS CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP004953

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

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.

  • Name

    SRBUI SARAFYAN VS GEVORK TUTUNJIAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC695976

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2018

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.

  • Name

    GALIO VS. FLAGSHIP HEALTHCARE CENTER

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01017674-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2019

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 .

  • Name

    DUONG A TRAN ET AL VS BENIGNO RODRIGUEZ ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC710704

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    CHRISTOPHER BARRAGAN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC690275

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

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.

  • Name

    IRVIN WALLACE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS COMMUNITY CORP. OF SANTA MONICA, ENTITY TYPE UNKNOWN

  • Case No.

    20STCV03749

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

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.

  • Name

    MERCEDES LUGA VS WELLINGTON M CABAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV16631

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2019

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.

  • Name

    RAUL MORENO VS MIRIAM G CENTENO ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC700902

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

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.

  • Name

    RICHARD STRAUSS, IN AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, AMY HONEYWELL VS THE TERRACES AT VIA VERDE - A MEMORY CARE COMMUNITY,, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV06486

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2022

  • County

    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].)

  • Name

    ABBY H. FRIEDMAN VS KEYVAN SHIRAZI M.D., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV23992

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2021

  • County

    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).

  • Name

    CHRISTOPHER TREJO VS. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL

  • Case No.

    YC058023

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DONNA LEE SCOULAR VS EARL MENDES HYMAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23TRCV01712

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DOROTHY J POSNICK VS FRONT PORCH COMMUNITIES OPERATING GROUP

  • Case No.

    BC668389

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2017

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.

  • Name

    CRAIG FEAGINS, ET AL. VS BETH MCCAUGHEY ZAREM, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV02466

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

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.

  • Name

    ESTATE OF RICHARD SALZBERG, ET AL. VS CSE SAFEGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    19STCV46964

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

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.

  • Name

    RACHEL MONCADA VS ANGELS TRANS, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV09432

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

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.’

  • Name

    PAMELA MENAGH VS. MENNONITE BRETHREN HOMES, INC

  • Case No.

    23CECG02710

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MICHAEL LA PORTA, ET AL. VS DAVID W. AFFELD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV28515

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

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.

  • Name

    JOHN DOES 31 VS. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA

  • Case No.

    34-2015-00178264-CU-PO-GDS

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2015

[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).

  • Name

    GWENDOLYN HARRIS VS FREEMAN MED. TOWERS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV05463

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2019

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).

  • Name

    ALMA SAVOY VS WEST GARDENA POST ACUTE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23TRCV04205

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2024

  • County

    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 .

  • Name

    DEAN HALL VS MARILYN MCINTYRE

  • Case No.

    20STCV23263

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AMOROSO PLACE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JOHN FABIAN BEVER, AN INDIVIDUAL

  • Case No.

    22STCV05698

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2022

  • County

    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).

  • Name

    EDUARDO DEL TORO VS. AMBROSIO RAMIREZ FRANCO

  • Case No.

    34-2010-00069054-CU-PA-GDS

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2011

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.

  • Name

    JERALYN SMITH VS THE WILSHIRE COMSTOCK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATI

  • Case No.

    BC657456

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2017

(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.

  • Name

    SALLY EMR VS THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC657601

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2018

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.

  • Name

    BETTY HAMMOND VS. HOME DEPOT USA INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    34-2009-00032679-CU-PO-GDS

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2009

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.

  • Name

    DANUSHA REMBAUM VS BRISTOL FARMS

  • Case No.

    19STCV14789

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    ROSE GLASS VS AMERICAN AIRLINES INC

  • Case No.

    BC683657

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2018

Based on these same facts, trial preference would serve the interests of justice.

  • Name

    STANLEY W. LEVY, ET AL. VS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22SMCV01323

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DUONG A TRAN ET AL VS BENIGNO RODRIGUEZ ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC710704

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ALAN NAITO ET AL VS CENTEX HOMES REALTY COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC698756

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2021

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.

  • Name

    SUSSANNA MARTIROSYAN VS VIVA TRANS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV26382

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2021

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.

  • Name

    JESUS SANDOVAL VS ANTONIO ACUNA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV46382

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    GAIN VS. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01114508

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

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.

  • Name

    WILBERT SAUNDERS VS TONY JOEY CRUZ JR ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC679873

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

The motion for trial preference is GRANTED. The trial date in this matter shall be addressed at the hearing of the motion.

  • Name

    YOLENY DE LA PAZ TORRES CRUZ, ET AL. VS JONATHAN AZIZZADEH, M.D., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV36088

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MARY HISAKO MORISHITA VS GARDENA TRANSIT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23TRCV01126

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2024

  • County

    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).

  • Name

    GONZALES V. KARLTON RESIDENTIAL CARE CENTER

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01075213

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2019

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.

  • Name

    LAD S. LENGYEL, ET AL. VS RICHARD SCHLANDER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV08504

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2019

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.

  • Name

    MYUNG SOO HAN VS VERITY HEALTH SYSTEM OF CA INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC647082

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

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.

  • Name

    ELAINE S KARR VS LAURA E SHAAYA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV38318

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    VIVIAN REGINA JACKSON VS MARNA HEALTH SERVICES, INC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV27249

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

.: 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).

  • Name

    RITA TAYLOR ET AL VS RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC692480

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2018

Despite Defendants’ arguments to the contrary, the Court finds that Plaintiffs qualify for a trial preference.

  • Name

    PAUL TUZZOLINO VS WINDSOR TWIN PALMS HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV47447

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ABNOS BOGHOSIAN VS LORETTA MARKARIAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV09928

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ISABELLA LUBOMIRSKI VS PCAL BB INC

  • Case No.

    BC648559

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2017

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).)

  • Name

    DOROTHY GRANT VS SHLOMO RECHNITZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV16420

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    18STCV11788

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2019

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.

  • Name

    MARY J KLING INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEE VS 170 CLIFFWOOD LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV29728

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2022

  • County

    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).

  • Name

    PEARL STERLING VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC715660

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2018

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 .

  • Name

    LEONARD TYRONE HIBBLER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS WILBUR NOBUO SATO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV14948

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2021

  • County

    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).

  • Name

    NAHIDA KATTUAH VS. CAPITAL J PROPERTIES LLC

  • Case No.

    34-2016-00198016-CU-PO-GDS

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2016

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.

  • Name

    ROBERT WOOTEN VS. EDMUND G BROWN JR INDIVIDUALLY AND IN OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

  • Case No.

    34-2015-00175440-CU-MC-GDS

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2015

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.

  • Name

    LEONARD DESBOROUGH VS GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

  • Case No.

    05AS05415

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2010

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.’

  • Name

    STELLA BOYAJIAN VS. DIANE BOYAJIAN

  • Case No.

    22CECG01133

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KATHRYN RICE VS WINDSOR THE RIDGE REHABILITATION CENTER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV20950

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BERNAL VS HIGHSHAW M.D.

  • Case No.

    RIC2003600

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2021

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.

  • Name

    JANICE WEINER VS MOY-FINCHER-CHIPPS SURGERY CENTER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV13750

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

“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).)

  • Name

    AMY MARY LOMELI VS KORY ALVIN CHAN

  • Case No.

    BC695873

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

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.

  • Name

    LORENZO M. RUIZ, SR., ET AL. VS 3M COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23GDCV00516

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ROSA BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. VS WELLTOWER OPCO GROUP, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV09839

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope