Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Granting Preference In Setting Case For Trial, And Extending Discovery Cutoff
SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC24277262 - June 17, 2025 Hearing date: June 17, 2025 Case number: CGC24277262 Case title: WAYNE PEEL ET AL VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24277262 | Case Title: | | WAYNE PEEL ET AL VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-17 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Granting Preference In Setting Case For Trial, And Extending Discovery Cutoff | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, June 17, 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. 36(a). Opposition filed by Defendant Pierce Lathing, Co., dba Pierce Enterprises. Joinder filed by Defendant Golden Gate Drywall. Reply filed.
Defendant's opposition is meritless. Defendant admits that Mr. Peel meets the criteria of Section 36(a) in that he is over 70 but deny that his health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation. The Court disagrees. Based on the declarations of Plaintiff, his treating physician, Keith Ayrons, M.D., and his attorney David Donadio, the Court finds preference is warranted. Moreover, the Court will not impose conditions on Plaintiffs' right to a preferential trial date. "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
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 October 6, 2025, at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is October 15, 2025. 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 September 30, 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 September 19, 2025.
6. The expert discovery cut-off date is October 3, 2025.
7. All bankruptcy documents shall be turned over to defendants no later than July 17, 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 1 of 2, see next entry) | |