Jean Brandenburg et al vs THREE ARCH LLC et al

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 16 Honorable William J. Monahan, Presiding (covering this calendar for Judge Parrett) Courtroom Clerk, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2270

DATE: 7/24/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 25CV457905 First Baptist Church of Hearing: Demurrer to the unverified First Amended Cross Complaint of Campbell vs Great Def/X- Great Commission Association of Southern Baptist Churches Commission Association of Southern Baptist Churches Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Lines 1-2 for tentative ruling. The court will prepare the order. LINE 2 25CV457905 First Baptist Church of Hearing: Motion to Strike Entire of the Frist Amended Complaint by Campbell vs Great Cross Defendant First Baptist Church of Campbell and Cross Defendant Commission Association of Eden Church Southern Baptist Churches Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Lines 1-2 for tentative ruling. The court will prepare the order. LINE 3 25CV458057 Discover Bank vs Devanshu Motion: Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Plt Capital One, N.A. Kumar successor by merger to Discover Bank

UNOPPOSED and GRANTED. The court will sign the proposed order and proposed judgment submitted with the moving papers. LINE 4 24CV448840 SKANSKA-SHIMMICK- Motion: Compel Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for HERZOG, A JOINT Admissions and Form Interrogs set one by Defendant LAN/TYLIN, A VENTURE vs LAN/TYLIN, A JOINT VENTURE JOINT VENTURE et al Ctrl Click on Lines 4-5 for tentative ruling. The court will prepare the order. LINE 5 24CV448840 SKANSKA-SHIMMICK- Hearing: Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Portions of LTYL's Motion to HERZOG, A JOINT Compel Further Responses by Plaintiff SKANSKA-SHIMMICK-HERZOG, A VENTURE vs LAN/TYLIN, A JOINT VENTURE JOINT VENTURE et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Lines 4-5 for tentative ruling.

The court will prepare the order. LINE 6 23CV426612 Bathena Dixon vs General Motion: Continue Motors, LLC Trial and all related dates by Defendant General Motors, LLC

Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 6 for tentative ruling. The court will prepare the order. LINE 7 25CV483511 Jean Brandenburg et al vs Motion: Order Granting a Trial Preference by Plaintiff Jean Brandenburg THREE ARCH LLC et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 7 for tentative ruling. The court will prepare the order. 9:01 AM 25CV468350 CAMDEN PARK LLC, a Motion: Withdraw as attorney by L.S. Carlson Law, PC -- (Joseph Line 1 Delaware limited liability Sarnowski Esq.) for Defendant SAMUEL SHAW company vs SAMUEL SHAW et al UOPPOSED and GRANTED. The court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers.

Calendar Line 7 Case Name: Jean Bradenburg et al vs THREE ARCH LLC et al Case No.: 25CV483511

Plaintiff Jean Bradenburg, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Hilary Brandenburg (collectively, “Plaintiff”) moves for trial preference (the “Motion”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff is currently 89 years old, has a substantial interest in the action, and their health status is such that a preferential trial setting is necessary in order to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation. The Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 36(a).

Plaintiff filed this action on December 30, 2025, alleging claims for elder abuse, negligence, violation of resident’s rights, intentional misrepresentation, concealment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability arising out of the care that the Plaintiff received while residing at Defendants’ skilled nursing facility. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide adequate care, resulting in the worsening of the Plaintiff’s pressure wounds, rashes, a dental infection, and injuries sustained in a fall.

CCP section 36(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, and (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary in order to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.

In Fox v. Superior Court (2018), 21 Cal. App. 5th 529, 230, the Court of Appeal held that trial preference under CCP section 36(a) is mandatory when a party over the age of 70 demonstrates that the party has a substantial interest in the action and that the party’s health is such a preferential trial setting is necessary to prevent prejudice to the party’s interest in the litigation. The court further held that section 36(a) does not require clear and convincing evidence or a physician’s declaration. (Fox v. Superior Ct., supra, 21 Cal. App. 5th at 230.)

Plaintiff is 89 years old and suffers from numerous serious medical conditions, including a Stage IV sacral pressure ulcer, epilepsy, a history of traumatic brain injury, muscle weakness, a torn rotator cuff allegedly sustained while under the care of the Defendants, and dysphagia. The Plaintiff contends that because of her advanced age and declining health, a preferential trial setting is necessary to preserve her ability to participate meaningfully in the litigation. The Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing that the Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding her prognosis in order to satisfy CCP section 36(a) and that granting trial preference would substantially prejudice the Defendants’ ability to prepare for trial.

The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments. CCP section 36(a) requires the Court to determine whether the Plaintiff is over 70 years of age, has a substantial interest in the action, and whether their health is such that trial preference is necessary in order to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation. The evidence submitted is sufficient for the Court to make those findings under CCP section 36(a). The Court finds that the Plaintiff is over 70 years of age, has a substantial interest in the action, and that their health is such that a preferential trial setting is necessary in order to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of CCP section 36(a). CCP section 36(f) provides: Upon granting a motion for trial preference, the court shall set the matter for trial no more than 120 days from the date that the motion is granted unless the court finds that the interests of justice would be served by a later trial date.

The 120 day time period in CCP section 36(f) is sufficient for Defendants to prepare for trial in an action where a motion for trial preference is GRANTED. In any event, the court has discretion under CCP section 36(f) to find that the interests of justice would be served by a later trial date.

Regarding the Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial Preference, the Motion is GRANTED. A trial setting conference is hereby set in this matter for Wednesday 8/5/2026 at 11AM in Dept. 16 (and all parties by their attorneys of record (or in pro per) are ordered to appear in person or remotely). The Court shall set the matter for trial in accordance with CCP section 36(f).

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -