Oak Creek East Homeowners Association v. Terence Redmond, et al. 20CV000879
MOTION FOR PREFERENTIAL TRIAL SETTING
TENTATIVE RULING: Cross-defendant Clyde Perasso’s motion for trial preference is
DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).) The only evidence submitted is the the declaration
from attorney Hal Chase, Jr. The accompanying declaration does not explain that Perasso’s
“health is such” to show “a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing [his] interest in the
litigation.” (Id., § 36, subd. (a)(2); Chase Decl., ¶ 3 [describing Perasso as being in good
health].) Because Perasso has not satisfied section 36’s requirements, the application of the
provision is not mandatory. (See, e.g., Miller v. Super. Ct. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1200, 1205-
06; Vinokur v. Su
Hearing Date
July 29, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Oak Creek East Homeowners Association v. Terence Redmond, et al. 20CV000879
MOTION FOR PREFERENTIAL TRIAL SETTING
TENTATIVE RULING: Cross-defendant Clyde Perasso’s motion for trial preference is
DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).) The only evidence submitted is the the declaration
from attorney Hal Chase, Jr. The accompanying declaration does not explain that Perasso’s
“health is such” to show “a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing [his] interest in the
litigation.” (Id., § 36, subd. (a)(2); Chase Decl., ¶ 3 [describing Perasso as being in good
health].) Because Perasso has not satisfied section 36’s requirements, the application of the
provision is not mandatory. (See, e.g., Miller v. Super. Ct. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1200, 1205-
06; Vinokur v. Su