LINDA L. FEE ET AL VS. BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC. ET AL

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: | | 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, July 22, 2025, in Department 304, Line 2.

Plaintiff's Motion for Order Granting Preference in Setting Case for Trial, and Extending Discovery Cutoff is GRANTED under C.C.P. 36(a) and 36(d). Opposition filed by Defendants Fold Bond Co, LLC, Chattem, Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S LLC. Joinder filed by Defendant Safeway, Inc. The untimely joinder filed by Defendant Target Corporation was not considered. Reply filed.

Plaintiff Linda Fee ("Mrs. Fee") is over 70 years of age and has provided clear and convincing medical documentation from Dr. Amith Ahluwalia, M.D that she suffers from incurable mesothelioma, raising substantial medical doubt of her survival beyond six months. (See Declaration of Amith Ahluwalia, M.D., at 16 ["[T]o a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is substantial doubt that she will survive beyond six months from March 24, 2025"]; Code Civ. Proc. 36(d).)

The Court further finds that Mrs. Fee's health is such that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference. The fact that the declaration was obtained four months before the current motion was filed does not undermine its relevance or reliability. Defendants cite to no authority requiring the declaration to be contemporaneous with the filing of the motion. In addition, Defendants did not provide any contradictory medical opinion, such as a declaration from a licensed physician or a medical doctor, disputing Dr. Ahluwalia's opinion.

Furthermore, Defendants' argument regarding the positive notes in Mrs. Fee's medical records are unpersuasive and insufficient. Defendants are not physicians qualified to opine on either Mrs. Fee's medical records or the validity of Dr. Ahluwalia's opinions. Defendants are reminded that unsupported speculation about a plaintiff's health is not a valid basis to oppose a preference motion grounded in admissible medical evidence. Even if there were not such evidence, it is clear that Mrs. Fee's health is declining and her ability to participate in this litigation is in jeopardy. (See Declaration of Sophia Barba at 2 and 5.)

Mrs. Fee, of course, has a substantial interest in the action as a whole and her health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc. 36(a).) Thus, "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." (