Molfino vs Crestview Investments LLC, et al.

25CV149460: MOLFINO vs CRESTVIEW INVESTMENTS LLC, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Ex Parte Application PLAINTIFF VIGI MOLFINO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SETTING TRIAL WITH PREFERENCE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 36; DECLARATIONS OF VIGI MOLFINO AND BRODERICK H. BROWN in Department 15

Tentative Ruling - 05/26/2026 Peter Borkon

The Ex Parte Application PLAINTIFF VIGI MOLFINO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SETTING TRIAL WITH PREFERENCE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 36; DECLARATIONS OF VIGI MOLFINO AND BRODERICK H. BROWN filed by Vigi Molfino on 05/15/2026 is Granted.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 36(a), Plaintiff Vigi Molfino (“Plaintiff”) moves for trial preference.

Under section 36(a), a court must grant trial preference when a party is over 70 years of age and the Court finds that “(1) [t]he party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole[; and] (2) [t]he health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.”

Upon grantingamotion for preference the courtmustset thecasefor trial no more than 120 days from that date; no continuances are permitted “except for physical disability of a party or a party's attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record. Any continuance shall be for no more than 15 days and no more than one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party.” (CCP § 36(a).)

Becausesection 36(a)is mandatory and considers only theage andhealth of the moving party, the Court may not weightherespectiveinterests or comparethepotential prejudice to the opposing party once it finds that the moving party has made its showing. (Fox v. Superior Court(2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 535.)

TheCourt finds thatPlaintiff has made the required showing under section 36(a). She will be 81 years old when the 5/28/2026 hearing occurs. She is the sole plaintiff in this case and therefore has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. Her health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudice. (Molfino Decl. ¶ 3; Brown Decl. ¶ 4.) The declarations submitted by Plaintiff and her counsel are sufficient to establish that Plaintiff’s health is such that trial preference is necessary to prevent prejudice. (See Fox, 21 Cal.App.5th at 534 [“a motion under subdivision (a) may be supported by nothing more than an attorney's declaration‘based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party.’”].)

Crestview opposes Plaintiff’s request for preference on the ground that her ex parte application suffered from certain defects, and she has not identified “irreparable harm or immediate danger” due to her age or health. 25CV149460: MOLFINO vs CRESTVIEW INVESTMENTS LLC, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Ex Parte Application PLAINTIFF VIGI MOLFINO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SETTING TRIAL WITH PREFERENCE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 36; DECLARATIONS OF VIGI MOLFINO AND BRODERICK H. BROWN in Department 15 Although Plaintiff’s ex parte application did not comply with the notice provisions of CRC 3.1204, the Court finds that the defects did not create any prejudice because the Court set this matter for hearing on 5/28/2026 and Crestview was able to timely file a substantive opposition.

The Court further notes that section 36(a) does not require Plaintiff to demonstrate “irreparable harm or immediate danger” to obtain trial preference. Plaintiff has satisfied the applicable statutory requirements.

Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED.The partiesare ordered to meet and confer forthwith regarding necessary discovery andpotential trial dates before May 27, 2026.

Unless the parties stipulate to a different date, the Court will set this matter for trial on September 21, 2026 at 9:00 am. The pretrial conference will be held on September 9, 2026 at 2:30 pm and a Mandatory Settlement Conference will be scheduled approximately 30 days in advance of the trial. Parties may appear remotely via Zoom.