| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PREFERENCE IN SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL, AND EXTENDING DISCOVERY CUTOFF
SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC24277266 - July 22, 2025 Hearing date: July 22, 2025 Case number: CGC24277266 Case title: LINDA L. FEE ET AL VS. BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24277266 | Case Title: | | LINDA L. FEE ET AL VS. BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-07-22 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PREFERENCE IN SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL, AND EXTENDING DISCOVERY CUTOFF - FOR TENTATIVE RULING PURPOSES ONLY. | Rulings: | | (tentative ruling 3 of 3)
The moving party shall lodge with the clerk in Department 304 by the time set for this hearing a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on July 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Attorneys may appear in person or remotely via zoom: Meeting ID 160 757 8308; Passcode: 485029. Face coverings are optional.
The Court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law and Motion department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: Their name, CSR and telephone number, and their individual work email address. There will be only one official record. If the parties cannot agree, the Court will designate a qualified court reporter to provide the official transcript for the matter, and the party or parties will bear the cost. = (EPS/304). | |
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?”