Motion for Trial Preference
25CV028751: VALLELEY vs JOHNSON 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The motion of Plaintiff Judith Florence Valleley (Plaintiff') for preference in trial setting is ruled on as follows.
The notice of motion provides inaccurate information regarding the Courts tentative ruling system. The Courts tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judges department is governed by Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and/or self-represented litigants and advise them of the correct local rule, the correct tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing for motions pending in this department.
Plaintiff requests preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 36(a). Defendant Mark Alan Johnson (Defendant) opposes the motion.
To obtain preference under Code of Civil Procedure § 36(a) a party must be over the age of 70, have a substantial interest in the litigation and suffer from a health condition such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation. A motion for preference may be filed after all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared by any party who has attained the age of 70 at the time the motion is filed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 36(c).)
Plaintiff argues she is over 89 years old, has a substantial interest as the only injured party, and that preference is necessary to avoid prejudice because Plaintiff has been recently diagnosed with stage 3 stomach cancer.
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?”
25CV028751: VALLELEY vs JOHNSON 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff is over 70 or that Plaintiff has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. However, Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed to provide admissible medical documentation to support a finding that Plaintiff has been diagnosed with stage 3 stomach cancer. Defendant argues the only evidence provided is a declaration from counsel attesting that plaintiff was given a cancer diagnosis. Defendant argues Plaintiff must provide key medical records or a declaration from a physician in order to be entitled to preference.
However, a motion for preference under section 36(a) may be supported by nothing more than an attorneys declaration based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party. (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534 [quoting Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 12:247.1, p. 12(I)-44].) Here, Plaintiffs counsel has provided a declaration to confirm the diagnosis based on information obtained from Plaintiffs emergency contact.
Plaintiffs counsel also attached a provided a redacted medical record. Thus, it is apparent that Counsel has reviewed Plaintiffs medical record. The Court finds the declaration is sufficient to establish Counsel has a reasonable factual basis for being informed and believed that Plaintiff has stage 3 stomach cancer. The Court therefore finds Plaintiffs health is such that preference is necessary to avoid prejudice.
Defendant also argues the motion should be denied because expediting trial would deprive Defendant of due process because Defendant would not have a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery.
Preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a) mandatory, not discretionary. (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1086.) 'The trial court has no power to balance the differing interests of opposing litigants in applying the provision.' (Id. at 1085.) Thus, Defendants concerns regarding the need for additional time to complete discovery in actions granted preference must be addressed to the Legislature.
Moreover, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that setting a preference trial would deprive Defendant of a reasonable opportunity to complete discovery. Defendant has not provided any declaration identifying what discovery Defendant would be unable to complete. At most, Defendant would be required to treat this action with preference in conducting discovery. Moreover, alternative remedies, such as shortening the time to respond to discovery or extending the deadline for completing discovery are available to address Defendants concern.
The motion for preference is granted. Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 36(f), trial must be scheduled on a date within 120 days of the hearing. The hearing on this motion is scheduled for
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV028751: VALLELEY vs JOHNSON 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
May 8, 2026. Thus, trial must be scheduled on or before Tuesday, September 8, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 12a, 36(f).) Trial is set for August 25, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 17A. A mandatory settlement conference is set for July 20, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 450.
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 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting 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 Courts 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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.