Reset


Private

civil tentative rulings


The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial.


Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court, and other parties, by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile to 559-733-6774.


Timestamp: 02/23/2017 at 3:41am



The Tentative Rulings for Thursday February 23, 2017 are:

Re:              Doe v. Doe

Case No.:    VCU 267848

Date:            February 23, 2017

Time:            8:30 A.M. 

Dept.             2– The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:         Motion for Preference

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiff Russell M. Doe’s motion for trial preference is granted. The Court directs the Clerk of this Court to advance the original April 6, 2017 Case Management Conference on calendar for this action to March 10, 2017, 8:30 am, dept 2.  

If the new advanced date for the Case Management Conference is within the 15-day period that California Rule of Court 3.725 requires for the parties to file their respective Case Management Statements, the parties shall file their respective Case Management Statements no later than five days before the new Case Management Conference date.  An advanced trial date for this action will be calendared at the new Case Management Conference date based on the representations set forth by the parties in their Case Management Statements.

The Court’s file indicates that all necessary parties have received proper and timely notice of this motion.  The Court has not received any response to this motion.

CCP §36(a) authorizes the Court upon motion to advance the trial date for an action where (1) the moving party is over 70 years old; and/or (2) the moving party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole; and/or (3) the party’s health is such that a trial preference is necessary to prevent prejudice to the moving party’s interest in the litigation.

Here, the moving party is plaintiff Russell M. Doe. Mr. Doe is 86 years old, and his complaint clearly indicates that he has an interest in this action that would be prejudiced absent the advancing of the trial date for this case. His counsel Michael P. Smith also indicates in his declaration in support of this motion that Mr. Doe’s physical capabilities are deteriorating due to his advanced age.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to advance the trial date for this action. The Court directs the Clerk of this Court to advance the original April 6, 2017 Case Management Conference on calendar for this action to March 10, 2017, 8:30 am, dept. 2. 

If the new advanced date for the Case Management Conference is within the 15-day period that California Rule of Court 3.725 requires for the parties to file their respective Case Management Statements, the parties shall file their respective Case Management Statements no later than five days before the new Case Management Conference date.  An advanced trial date for this action will be calendared at the new Case Management Conference date based on the representations set forth by the parties in their Case Management Statements.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

 


This concludes the civil tentative rulings



Top