Notice Of Motion And Motion To Set A Preferential Trial Date Pursuant To C.C.P. 36(A) And 36(E)
SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC25277354 - July 14, 2026 Hearing date: July 14, 2026 Case number: CGC25277354 Case title: EDWIN ELWELL ET AL VS. AGCO CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25277354 | Case Title: | | EDWIN ELWELL ET AL VS. AGCO CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-07-14 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Set A Preferential Trial Date Pursuant To C.C.P. 36(A) And 36(E) | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday July 14, 2026, in Department 502, Line 2.
Plaintiff's Motion for Order Granting Preference in Setting Case for Trial, and Extending Discovery Cutoff is GRANTED under C.C.P. 36(a).
Opposition filed by Defendants (1) Morse Tec LLC, f/k/a Borg Warner Morse Tec, LLC, as successor-by-merger to Borg-Warner Corporation; (2) International Motors, LLC; (3) Deere & Company; (4) Daimler Truck North America LLC, Cummins Inc; (5) Meritor, Inc; and (6) Hyster-Yale Materials Handling, Inc. Joinders filed by (1) The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; (2) DCo LLC; (3) Pneumo Abex LL; and (4) Joy Global Surface Mining Inc. Reply filed.
Plaintiffs Edwin Elwell and Diane Elwell move for trial preference pursuant to C.C.P. 36(a) based on Plaintiff Edwin Elwell ("Plaintiff") age and health condition. Plaintiff submitted competent evidence that he is over the age of 70 and that he has a substantial interest in this action. (Declaration of Hanna B. Oxley "Oxley Decl" at 2-3.) Plaintiff also submitted adequate evidence that his health is such that trial preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing Plaintiff. (Id. at 4, 6, 8-9.)
"The standard under [Code of Civil Procedure Section 36] subdivision (a), unlike under subdivision (d), which is more specific and more rigorous, includes no requirement of a doctor's declaration." (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534.) Unlike other areas of the law, a declaration setting forth the health of the party in support of a motion for preference under CCP 36(a) may be made by a conclusory and hearsay declaration from counsel. Where a party meets the requisite standard for calendar preference under [Code of Civil Procedure section 36] subdivision (a), preference must be granted.
No weighing of interests is involved." (Fox, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at 535; see also, e.g., Miller v. Superior Court (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1200, 1204
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?”
Accordingly, the Motion is granted.
1. The trial date is November 2, 2026, at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is November 12, 2026. b. The parties shall follow the California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, and Local Rule 20.
2. The last day for hearing summary judgment/adjudication motions is October 27, 2026. a. Summary judgment/adjudication motions shall be brought on regular notice pursuant to the relevant provisions of the C.C.P., unless the parties stipulate otherwise. b. Before a party files and serves a summary judgment/adjudication motion, it must contact the clerk to make a reservation. c. The Court allows a maximum of four summary judgment/adjudication motions per day to be calendared, unless good cause is found to exceed this number. Contact the clerk to schedule a good cause hearing.
3. Time to respond to written discovery not yet served is shortened to 20 days. a. For written discovery that has already been served, responses are due within 20 days of this hearing or by the date determined by the C.C.P., whichever is earlier. b. Any issue/dispute that requires meet and confer, shall occur in person or via telephone, not by email or letter. (tentative ruling continues 1 of 2, see next entry) | |