ROY EDWARD ABENDROTH VS. 3M COMPANY ET AL

SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC25277298 - September 23, 2025 Hearing date: September 23, 2025 Case number: CGC25277298 Case title: ROY EDWARD ABENDROTH VS. 3M COMPANY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25277298 | Case Title: | | ROY EDWARD ABENDROTH VS. 3M COMPANY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-23 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, September 23, 2025, Department 304, Line 2. (Part 1 of 2)

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). Opposition filed by Defendants (1) BASF Catalysts and (2) Pneumo-Abex Corporation. Joinder filed by Defendant Morse Tec LLC. Reply filed.

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. In this case, Dr. Eric Presser's declaration in which he opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that there is substantial medical doubt of Plaintiff's survival beyond six months from July 18, 2025, is sufficient.

Moreover, Defendants' due process argument is meritless. 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 January 12, 2026, at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is January 21, 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 6, 2025. 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 December 26, 2025.

6. The expert discovery cut-off date is January 9, 2026.

7. All bankruptcy documents shall be turned over to defendants no later than October 23, 2025. a. If Plaintiff submits documents to bankruptcy trusts after this date, they must notify Defendants no later than five days after submission. b. The fact discovery cut-off does not apply to bankruptcy documents. (Tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) | |