Motion for Preference
CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0210376 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Preference: Plaintiffs Roger Spitsen and Annette Spitsen move for preference pursuant to CCP § 36(a). Despite being properly noticed, Defendant Nor Cal Oil, Inc. did not oppose the motion.
(a) 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. (b) A civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.
A civil action subject to subdivision (a) shall be given preference over a case subject to this subdivision. (c) Unless the court otherwise orders: (1) 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. (2) At any time during the pendency of the action, a party who reaches 70 years of age may file and serve a motion for preference. (d) 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. (e) 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. (f) 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.
Any continuance shall be for no more than 15 days and no more than one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party. (g) Upon the granting of a motion for preference pursuant to subdivision (b), a party in an action based upon a health provider’s alleged professional negligence, as defined in Section 364, shall receive a trial date not sooner than six months and not later than nine months from the date that the motion is granted.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Complaint in this matter was filed on April 14, 2026 and named only one Defendant other than Does. Proof 7 of Service of Summons was filed on May 29, 2026 indicating that Defendant Nor Cal Oil, Inc. was served on May 18, 2026. The Motion for Preference was filed on June 30, 2026. Defendant filed an Answer on June 18, 2026. CCP § 36(c)(1), which allows a party to file the motion after all essential parties have been served, has been satisfied.
Plaintiff Roger Spitsen turned eighty last month. Plaintiff Roger Spitsen has a substantial interest as he the one alleged to have suffered physical injury during a fall at a business owned by Defendant. Plaintiff has presented evidence that his current health conditions are such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.. No evidence has been submitted to the contrary and Defendant did not oppose the motion. Plaintiff therefore meets the requirements of mandatory preference pursuant to CCP § 36(a).
The motion is GRANTED. Tuesday November 3, 2026 is the 120th day. The Court intends to set the matter for trial no later than October 20, 2026. The Court will also vacate the presently set Mandatory Settlement Conference and set a Mandatory Settlement Conference approximately 4-6 weeks prior to the newly selected trial date. All trial related deadlines will be based on the new trial date. Plaintiffs provided a proposed Order that that will be modified to reflect the Cout’s ruling.
WYNHOFF VS. CITY OF REDDING