Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 37, Date: 2022-11-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 37-2022-00018334 Hearing Date: November 1, 2022 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR PREFERENCE
On May 13, 2022,
Plaintiffs Kenneth Kranz and Lucinda Kranz filed a complaint alleging personal
injury due to asbestos exposure. On October
5, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this motion for trial preference pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure sections 36, subdivision (a).
A party who is
over 70 years old may petition the court for a preference, which the court
shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: (1) the party
has a substantial interest in the action as a whole; and (2) the health of the
party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s
interest in the litigation. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 36, subd. (a).) An affidavit
submitted in support of a motion for preference under subdivision (a) of Section
36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon
information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any
party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36.5.)
“Upon the granting
of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not
more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120
days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical
disability of a party or a party’s attorney, or upon a showing of good cause
stated in the record.” (Id., § 36, subd. (f).) “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.” (Id.)
As a preliminary
matter, section 36 requires the moving party to serve a declaration stating all
essential parties have been served with process or have appeared. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed such a declaration. But of the 31 defendants, no defendants has
answered, only one defendant has been dismissed, and only one defendant has
filed a motion to quash. Plaintiffs filed
no proofs of service showing all defendants were served with the complaint and
summons before Plaintiffs filed this motion.
Plaintiffs are to file proofs of service showing Plaintiffs served the
complaint and summons on all defendants, except for Union Carbide (dismissed)
and Superior Lidgerwood Mundy Corporation (motion to quash filed), before
Plaintiffs filed this motion on October 5, 2022.
Plaintiff
Kenneth Kranz is 84 years old and has mesothelioma. He suffers from shortness of breath, weakness,
difficulty walking and getting up out of chairs, and loss of weight. (Peterson Decl. at ¶¶ 6-7.) The Court finds that Kenneth Kranz has a
substantial interest in the action as a whole.
The evidence establishes that his health and age are such that a
preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing his interest in the
litigation. Given his age and health his
condition likely will continue to decline.
Granting preference here is necessary to ensure he can participate in
the trial while his health permits.
Defendants request
that the Court shorten the notice period for motions for summary judgment and
summary adjudication. The Court cannot
do that. (See McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 115-18; see
also Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union
(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 765-66 (discussing McMahon and reversing judgment for failure to provide notice by the
statutorily required minimum time period).)
At most, parties may stipulate to waive the statutorily mandated minimum
notice period. (See Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital v. Danning, Gill, Diamond
& Kollitz (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1301.)
Subject to Plaintiffs
filing the proofs of service showing Plaintiffs served the complaint and
summons on all defendants, except for Union Carbide and Superior Lidgerwood
Mundy Corporation, before October 5, 2022, the motion is GRANTED.
Trial is set for February
27, 2023 at 9 a.m. The Final Status
Conference is February 14, 2023 at 9 a.m.
The court sets a trial setting conference for November 9, 2022 at 8:30
a.m.
The moving party
is to give notice.