PACK vs ROLLINS, INC., et al.

24CV059115: PACK vs ROLLINS, INC., et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference filed by Robert Pack (Plaintiff) CRS# 445995432723 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 07/07/2026 Karin Schwartz

The Motion for Trial Preference filed by Robert Pack on 05/11/2026 is Denied.

Parties to appear to discuss potential advancement of trial date and MSJ scheduling.

Plaintiff initiated this action on January 8, 2024. The operative Second Amended Complaint filed on September 8, 2026, alleges, inter alia, harassment and discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), retaliation, defamation/slander, unfair business practices, elder abuse and discrimination on the basis of gender discrimination.

On November 6, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial date, from November 21, 2025 to May 1, 2026. On December 4, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. On April 7, 2026, the Court continued the trial date to April 16, 2027, as Plaintiff retained new counsel.

Plaintiff moves for trial preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (e), which provides that “[n]otwitshtanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supporting by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference.”

Plaintiff contends that he is 70 years of age; has a substantial interest in the action as a whole as the Plaintiff; and his health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudice to his interests in the litigation. Plaintiff states in his sworn declaration that the litigation has caused him significant stress and prejudice, and has worsened his psychiatric symptoms. (Pack Decl. ¶¶ 12-13.) He further states that there is a “substantial medical and emotional concern” regarding the trial date of April 16, 2027, such that he believes that his ability to meaningfully participate in trial and prosecute this action may be impacted. (Id. ¶¶ 14-17.)

Plaintiff’s psychiatry doctor, Rebecca Hirsch, M.D., confirms that she wrote Plaintiff a letter regarding the need to consider an expedited trial process to prevent Plaintiff’s further distress and decompensation. (Hirsch Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not established that Plaintiff’s health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudice to his interests in this litigation. Defendants further contend that their right to avail themselves of all aspects of the law would be hindered by granting the motion, as it will deprive them of their ability to bring a motion for summary judgment.