Christopher Connally vs. Samsung SDI Co Ltd

Background

This is a products liability lawsuit based on an incident which occurred on April 29, 2019, when Plaintiff stored a MXJO battery in his pants pocket that caught on fire, resulting in first and second degree burns to Plaintiff’s left hand, left leg and thigh, and genitals. Plaintiff purchased the battery on April 7, 2019 from Defendant Smoke 4 Less (“Smoke 4 Less”). Plaintiff alleges the battery was manufactured, marketed, sold, and/or distributed by Defendant Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. (“Samsung”).

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on May 19, 2020. The Complaint alleges causes of action for strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of Unfair Competition Law.

Although this action is an unlimited civil case, it has not proceeded in the Court’s Case Management Program (“CMP”) as normally done. On September 9, 2020, the Honorable Richard K. Sueyoshi continued the initial Case Management Conference (“CMC”) until further notice due to COVID. (Minute Order, Sept. 9, 2020.) Then on June 11, 2021, at a complex CMC, the Honorable Gerrit W. Wood rescinded the case’s complex designation and referred the case to the ordinary CMP, but stated that CMP calendars remain suspended until further notice. (Minute Order, June 11, 2021.) A new CMC notice was never issued.

Samsung and Smoke 4 Less have each filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) sections 583.310 and 583.360. Both motions are scheduled for hearing in Department 16D on May 12, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00278930-CU-PL-GDS: Christopher Connally vs. Samsung SDI Co Ltd 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Set Trial in Department 17A

Samsung has also filed a motion for summary judgment/adjudication, which is scheduled for hearing on June 18, 2026, in Department 16D.

Discussion

Plaintiff “moves the Court for an order pre-assigning this matter for a long cause jury trial,” arguing that “the case is not in the ordinary Sacramento case-management and trial-setting pipeline; and pre-assignment would promote orderly scheduling and reduce the risk of further delay, trailing, and wasted preparation.” (Pl.’s Not. of Mot. & Mot. 1:2-10.)

Smoke 4 Less and Samsung both oppose the motion. In essence, they each argue that the motion should be denied or stayed until after the Court rules on their motions to dismiss.

Pursuant to Local Rule 2.88(B), “all long cause civil trials shall be set for trial by either: (1) a judge ordering the matter to trial setting after a Case Management Conference; (2) a judge who finds that direct trial setting to a date certain is appropriate in a particular case; or (3) a party filing a request for a trial de novo after arbitration.”

Here, in light of the pending dismissal motions and since the case has not proceeded through the Court’s CMP, the Court finds that direct trial setting to a date certain is not appropriate. Rather, the Court finds that this case should be referred for further case management. The Sacramento County Superior Court has established Civil Home Court Departments. This action has been assigned to the Honorable Richard K. Sueyoshi in Department 16D. Plaintiff may contact that department to obtain a hearing date for a case management conference.

The Court notes that its ruling is made without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a renewed motion for pre-assignment of trial or an advanced trial date depending on the outcome of Defendants’ dismissal motions or other procedural developments.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

*** This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00278930-CU-PL-GDS: Christopher Connally vs. Samsung SDI Co Ltd 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Set Trial in Department 17A

an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. ***