| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Preference Pursuant To C.C.P. 36(A) And 36(D)
SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC25277319 - November 18, 2025 Hearing date: November 18, 2025 Case number: CGC25277319 Case title: REINHOLD HESS ET AL VS. A.B. BOYD CO. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25277319 | Case Title: | | REINHOLD HESS ET AL VS. A.B. BOYD CO. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-18 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Preference Pursuant To C.C.P. 36(A) And 36(D) | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, November 18, 2025, Department 304, Line 6.
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) and (d). Conditional Non-Opposition filed by Defendant Eaton Corporation. Oppositions filed by Defendants A.B Boyd Co; Sterling Wander LLP; and Union Carbide Corporation. Joinder filed by Defendants Johnston Boiler Company; Goodyear Tire Rubber Company; Global Merchandising Corporation; and Schneider Electric USA, Inc. Reply filed.
Defendants' oppositions verge on the frivolous, and their conditional demands are meritless. Dr. Devang Shah opines that "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is substantial doubt that he [Mr. Hess] will not survive beyond six months from the date of this declaration." (Plaintiff's Exhibit A at 22 [Declaration of Devang Shah, MD, dated August 1, 2025].) Defendants did not provide any contradictory medical opinion, such as a declaration from a licensed physician or a medical doctor, disputing Dr. Shah's opinion. Defendants and their counsel are not physicians qualified to opine on either Mr. Hess's medical records or the validity of Dr. Shah's opinions. As this Court has previously stated, unsupported speculation about a plaintiff's health is not a valid basis to oppose a preference motion grounded in admissible medical evidence.
"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
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?”
1. The trial date is March 9, 2026, at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is March 18, 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 March 3, 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 February 20, 2026.
6. The expert discovery cut-off date is March 6, 2026. (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in next entry) | |