Pass v. Oakmont Management Group

Here, Plaintiff was aware of the April 6 hearing and, as with other hearings in this matter on March 23, 2026, February 4, 2026, and November 17, 2025, he failed to appear. His own declaration establishes that he found the correct department without issue on the date of the hearing and the only reason the case was dismissed was his failure to enter the department and appear when the case was called. This inadvertence is not excusable or reasonable. Thus, the Court finds that relief under section 473(b) is unwarranted.

In light of the above, the motion is DENIED.

Court orders Clerk to give notice.

111 Pass v. Oakmont MOTION FOR PREFERENCE – GRANTED Management Group, Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a) permits a party 2026-01564998 who is over 70 years of age to petition the court for trial preference, which the court must grant if it 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.

Section 36 “was enacted for the purpose of assuring that an aged or terminally ill plaintiff would be able to participate in the trial of his or her case and be able to realize redress upon the claim asserted.” (Looney v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 521, 532.)

Plaintiff Ella Pass moves for Trial Preference under section 36(a). Plaintiff has a substantial interest in this action as she is the sole plaintiff. Plaintiff is currently 94 years old. (Decl. of Ella Pass, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff submits the declaration of her counsel, who details that Plaintiff suffered serious orthopedic injuries, endured two hip surgeries and a 23-day hospitalization marked by serious complications, and now depends on around-the- clock care with a statistical life expectancy of roughly 3.63 years. (Barnett Decl., ¶¶ 6–9.) The declaration complies with CCP §36.5 and the Court finds that the

health of Plaintiff is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation.

While Defendants oppose the motion, their opposition is based on the portion of the statute involving discretionary preference. (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 533–534 [clear-and-convincing- evidence standard applicable to discretionary preference under section 36(d) does not apply to a motion under section 36(a)]; id. at p. 534 [section 36(a) does not require proof of death, incapacity, or likely unavailability for trial].)

If the court finds that a party meets the requirements of section 36(a), the court cannot balance conflicting interests of opposing litigants. (Fox v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 535 [holding “preference must be granted” and “[n]o weighing of interests is involved” where the moving party meets the standard].)

If the motion is granted, trial must be set within 120 days after the motion is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36(f).)

Defendants’ objections to the Barnett declaration are OVERRULED. The Court finds the declaration complies with CCP § 36.5.

The parties are to appear at the hearing and be prepared to select a trial date within 120 days. Plaintiff’s counsel shall be prepared to provide a date for Plaintiff’s deposition and/or independent medical examination to occur within the next 30 days.

112 Security National Ins. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT – NO Co. v. OC Services TENTATIVE RULING Parties previously advised the court they were working on a settlement agreement.