JOHN PATRICK ANAMOSA ET AL VS. ABB INC. ET AL

SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC25277337 - December 9, 2025 Hearing date: December 9, 2025 Case number: CGC25277337 Case title: JOHN PATRICK ANAMOSA ET AL VS. ABB INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25277337 | Case Title: | | JOHN PATRICK ANAMOSA ET AL VS. ABB INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-09 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion To Specially Set A Trial Date Pursuant To C.C.P. 36 (A), (D) And (E) | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, December 9, 2025, in Department 304, Line 4.

Plaintiff's Motion for Order Granting Preference in Setting Case for Trial, and Extending Discovery Cutoff is GRANTED under C.C.P. sections 36 (a), (d) and (e). The Court only considered oppositions filed by Defendants Graybar Electric Company, Inc.; Metalclad Insulation LLC; Redco Corporation f/k/a Crane Co.; and Aurora Pump Company. Pursuant to the Court's ex parte order filed November 25, 2025, oppositions were due by noon Pacific time. All other oppositions and joinders submitted thereafter are untimely. Defendants' oppositions are meritless.

Dr. Eric Presser opines, based on a detailed review of Mr. Anamosa's medical records and a recent interview with him and Mrs. Anamosa, that "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is substantial doubt that he [Mr. Anamosa] will not survive beyond four months from the date of this declaration." (Plaintiff's Exhibit A at 18 [Declaration of Eric R. Presser, MD, dated November 17, 2025].) Defendants did not provide any contrary medical opinion, such as a declaration from a licensed physician or a medical doctor, disputing Dr. Presser's opinion.

"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 February 2, 2026, at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is April 8, 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 January 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.

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

5. The fact discovery cut-off date is January 16, 2026.

6. The expert discovery cut-off date is January 30, 2026. (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in next entry) | |