DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC26277383·sf·Civil·Asbestos
Hearing todayGRANTED

CHARLES MEEHAN VS. AMCROD, INC. ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Granting Preference In Setting Case For Trial, And Extending Discovery Cutoff

Hearing date
Aug 18, 2026
Department
502
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCHARLES MEEHAN
DefendantAMCROD, INC.
DefendantGolden Gate Drywall
OtherNational Fire Insurance Company of Hartford
OtherQuad C Corporation

Ruling

On Asbestos Law and Motion / Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, August 4, 2026, Department 502, Line 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Order Granting Preference in Setting Case for Trial, and Extending Discovery Cutoff is GRANTED under C.C.P. Section 36(a). Opposition filed by Defendant Golden Gate Drywall. Joinders filed by Intervenor National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, as Successor to Transcontinental Insurance Company and Quad C Corporation. Reply filed.

Defendant's opposition is meritless. Dr. Sei J. Lee opines, based on review of Plaintiff Charles Meehan's medical records that "due to Mr. Meehan's various comorbid medical conditions and diseases and his advanced age, his ability to participate in a legal proceeding is already impaired and will continue to decline further as time passes." (Declaration of Sie. J. Lee dated July 16, 2026.) Defendant did not address Dr. Lee's declaration or provide any contrary medical opinion. such as a declaration from a licensed physician or a medical doctor, disputing Dr.

Lee's opinion Accordingly, 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 v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 535; see also, e.g., Miller v. Superior Court (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1200, 1204 [statute "grants a mandatory and absolute right to trial preference"]; Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085 [trial court "has no power to balance the different interests of opposing litigants in applying the provision"]; Koch-Ash v.

Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 694 [section 36(a) "must be deemed to be mandatory and absolute" and "no discretion is left to trial courts.]

1. The trial date is December 7, 2026, at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is December 16, 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 December 2, 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.

4. Electronic service is considered the equivalent of personal service.

5. The fact discovery cut-off date is November 20, 2026.

6. The expert discovery cut-off date is December 4, 2026. (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share