KOHGADAI vs JETRO CASH & CARRY

25CV124371: KOHGADAI vs JETRO CASH & CARRY 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference CRS# 887523998170 in Department 15

Tentative Ruling - 06/09/2026 Peter Borkon

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 36(a) and (e), Plaintiff Ahmadullah Kohgadai (“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 granting a motion for preference the court must set the case for 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).)

Because section 36(a)is mandatory and considers only the age and health of the moving party, the Court may not weigh the respective interests or compare the potential 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.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has made the required showing under section 36(a). He will be 87 years old when the 6/11/2026 hearing occurs. He is the sole plaintiff in this case and therefore has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. His health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudice. (Morgan Decl. ¶¶ 4-7; Kohgadai Decl. ¶ 4; see also Reply Exs. 1, 2.) The declarations submitted by Plaintiff and his 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 the request on the ground that Plaintiff fails to submit sufficient evidence because he has not provided detailed information regarding the extent of his medical conditions. The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the applicable statutory requirements.