| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Granting Preference In Setting Case For Trial, And Extending Discovery Cutoff
SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC25277281 - October 7, 2025 Hearing date: October 7, 2025 Case number: CGC25277281 Case title: TERRY WOOLEY VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25277281 | Case Title: | | TERRY WOOLEY VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-07 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Granting Preference In Setting Case For Trial, And Extending Discovery Cutoff | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, October 7, 2025, in Department 304, Line 2.
Plaintiff's Motion for Order Granting Preference in Setting Case for Trial, and Extending Discovery Cutoff is GRANTED under C.C.P. 36(a). Conditional Non-Opposition filed by Defendant Southern California Edison Company. Joinder filed by Defendant Timec Services Company, Inc. Reply filed.
Defendant's opposition and conditional demands are meritless. Defendant in its opposition request that the court set the trial date no sooner than 120 days from the hearing and impose certain conditions on discovery and pre-trial motions. However, the court already adheres to the practice of scheduling trial dates as close to 120 days as possible. 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"]; Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085 [trial court "has no power to balance the different interests of opposing litigants in applying the provision"]; Koch-Ash v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 694 [section 36(a) "must be deemed to be mandatory and absolute" and "no discretion is left to trial courts."].)
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?”
1. The trial date is January 26, 2026, at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is February 4, 2026. b. The parties shall follow the California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, and Local Rule 20.
2. The last day for hearing summary judgment/adjudication motions is January 20, 2026. a. Summary judgment/adjudication motions shall be brought on regular notice pursuant to the relevant provisions of the C.C.P., unless the parties stipulate otherwise. b. Before a party files and serves a summary judgment/adjudication motion, it must contact the clerk to make a reservation. c. The Court allows a maximum of four summary judgment/adjudication motions per day to be calendared, unless good cause is found to exceed this number. Contact the clerk to schedule a good cause hearing.
3. Time to respond to written discovery not yet served is shortened to 20 days. a. For written discovery that has already been served, responses are due within 20 days of this hearing or by the date determined by the C.C.P., whichever is earlier. b. Any issue/dispute that requires meet and confer, shall occur in person or via telephone, not by email or letter.
4. Electronic service is considered the equivalent of personal service.
5. The fact discovery cut-off date is January 9, 2026.
6. The expert discovery cut-off date is January 23, 2026.
7. All bankruptcy documents shall be turned over to defendants no later than November 6, 2025. a. If Plaintiff submits documents to bankruptcy trusts after this date, they must notify Defendants no later than five days after submission. b. The fact discovery cut-off does not apply to bankruptcy documents. (tentative ruling continues 1 of 2, see next entry) | |