RUDY WILSON ET AL VS. PNEUMO ABEX LLC ET AL
Case Information
Motion(s)
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Advancing The Current Trial Date With Preference Pursuant To Ccp 36(A); And Extending Discovery Cutoff
Motion Type Tags
Other
Parties
- Plaintiff: RUDY WILSON
- Defendant: PNEUMO ABEX LLC
- Defendant: Frank R. Connell & Son Inc.
- Other: Sentry Insurance Company
- Other: Harford Casualty Insurance Company
- Defendant: Richmond Hardware
- Defendant: Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc
- Defendant: Metalclad Insulation LLC
- Defendant: ZF Active Safety Us Inc.
- Defendant: Yale Industrial Products, Inc
- Defendant: Toshiba International Corporation
- Defendant: Morse Tec LLC
- Defendant: Dolans of Pinole Lumbar and Building Materials Co
- Defendant: Quad-C Corporation
Ruling
SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC25277279 - May 5, 2026 Hearing date: May 5, 2026 Case number: CGC25277279 Case title: RUDY WILSON ET AL VS. PNEUMO ABEX LLC ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25277279 | Case Title: | | RUDY WILSON ET AL VS. PNEUMO ABEX LLC ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-05 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Advancing The Current Trial Date With Preference Pursuant To Ccp 36(A); And Extending Discovery Cutoff | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, May 5, 2026, for 9:00 AM Department 502, Line 2.
Plaintiff's Motion for Order Advancing the Current Trial Date with Preference, and Extending Discovery Cutoff is GRANTED under C.C.P. sec 36(a) and 36.5.
Conditional Non-Opposition filed by Defendant Frank R. Connell & Son Inc. Oppositions filed by Intervenors Sentry Insurance Company and Harford Casualty Insurance Company on behalf of Defendant Richmond Hardware, Defendants Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc, Metalclad Insulation LLC; and ZF Active Safety Us Inc. Joinder filed by Defendants Yale Industrial Products, Inc; Toshiba International Corporation; Pneumo Abex LLC; and Morse Tec LLC. Defendants Dolans of Pinole Lumbar and Building Materials Co's Joinder and Quad-C Corporation's opposition were untimely. Reply filed.
Defendants' opposition and conditional demands are meritless. Dr. Sei J. Lee opines that "due to Mr. Wilson's various comorbidities and advanced age, his ability to participate in a legal proceeding is already impaired and will continually decline further as time passes." (Declaration of Dr. Sei J. Lee, dated April 6, 2026 at 7.) Defendants did not provide any contradictory medical opinion, such as a declaration from a licensed physician or a medical doctor, disputing Dr. Lee's opinion. As this Court has previously stated, unsupported speculation about a plaintiff's health is not a valid basis to oppose a preference motion grounded in admissible medical evidence.
Moreover, the Court will not impose conditions on Plaintiff's right to a preferential trial date. "Where a party meets the requisite standard for calendar preference under [Code of Civil Procedure section 36] subdivision (a), preference must be granted. No weighing of interests is involved." (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 535; see also, e.g., Miller v. Superior Court (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1200, 1204 [statute "grants a mandatory and absolute right to trial preference"];