By Plaintiffs for Preferential Trial Setting
(48)
Tentative Ruling
Re: Hokokian v. The California Home for the Aged, Inc., et al. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG05010
Hearing Date: May 13, 2026 (Dept. 403)
Motion: By Plaintiffs for Preferential Trial Setting
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403.
Tentative Ruling:
To grant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).) To deem the present set August 10, 2026, trial date as set by preference.
Explanation:
Code of Civil Procedure section 36 governs where preference is to be granted based on age, medical reasons, in the interests of justice, or time for trial, and provides, in pertinent part:
(a) A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age 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.
(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).)
The intent behind the provision of a preferential trial setting under subdivision (a) is to safeguard litigants beyond a specified age against the risk that death or incapacity might deprive them of the opportunity to have their case effectively tried and the opportunity to recover damages or appropriate redress. (Rice v. Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 81, 88-89.) The preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a), is mandatory if the requirements are met. (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a), the court must find whether the moving party’s health is such that the party would be prejudiced if the preference is not applied. (Fox v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 535.) 9
Here, it is not contested that plaintiff Margaret Hokokian has a substantial interest in the action and is over 70 years old.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs failed to show that Margaret Hokokian’s health conditions are such that preference is necessary to avoid prejudice. Plaintiff Margaret Hokokian’s health conditions are addressed in her attorney’s declaration. A letter from her primary physician, who has monitored her health for almost six years, states that Margaret Hokokian has been diagnosed with moderately severe coronary artery disease and moderately severe valvular heart disease and her status continues to decline. Notably, her physician states, “I urge an expedited resolution to any claims.” It would be reasonable to conclude that should Margaret Hokokian’s health continue to regress that her conditions would become too severe to continue to participate in the action or to see the action resolve. Consequently, the motion is granted.
Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (f), establishes that the trial shall be set “not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days...” Accordingly, the present set trial date of August 10, 2026, is fixed, with the additional designation of set by preference.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: lmg on 5-8-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
10