This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/16/2021 at 11:19:34 (UTC).

CHRISTOPHER TREJO VS. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/12/2008 CHRISTOPHER TREJO filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against JOHNSON JOHNSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RAMONA G. SEE, WILLIAM G. WILLETT, ROBERT H. O'BRIEN, DUDLEY W. GRAY II, CAROLYN KUHL, DAVID SOTELO, DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8023

  • Filing Date:

    09/12/2008

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RAMONA G. SEE

WILLIAM G. WILLETT

ROBERT H. O'BRIEN

DUDLEY W. GRAY II

CAROLYN KUHL

DAVID SOTELO

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

TREJO CHRISTOPHER

Defendants

MCKESSON CORPORATION

RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

MCNEIL CONSUMER & SPECIALTY PAHARMACEUTIC

THE KROGER CO. AN OHIO CORP.

SAV-ON DRUGS CALIF. CORP.

MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE DIV. OF

CVS CAREMARK

SAV-ON DRUGS

JOHNSON & JOHNSON

CVS/CAREMARK RHODE ISLAND CORP.

MCKESSON CORP.

THE KROGER CO.

THE KROGER CORPORATION AN OHIO CORPORATION

SAV-ON DRUGS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

SAV-ON DRUGS CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

THE KROGER CO. AN OHIO CORPORATION

CVS CAREMARK A RHODE ISLAND CORPORATION

MCNEIL CONSUMER & SPECIALTY PHARMACEUTICALS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

WITZER BRIAN D. INC. LAW OFFICES OF

BARBER JAMES C.

DIZON ROWENA J. ESQ.

WITZER BRIAN D.

WITZER BRIAN DAVID

LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. WITZER INC.

Defendant Attorneys

PULLIAM THOMAS W.

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

THOMAS W. PULLIAM JR.

SUTHERLAND KARI L.

ZVOLEFF VERNON I. ESQ.

HEWES MICHAEL B.

SUTHERLAND KARI

CARROLL KELLY TROTTER FRANZEN & MCKENNA

FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

ZVOLEFF VERNON IVAN ESQ.

ABERNETHY DAVID F

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHARGING LIEN

1/11/2018: NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHARGING LIEN

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER WITHDRAWING AN UNDERTAKING (CCP SECTIONS 995.360 & 995.430)

2/13/2018: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER WITHDRAWING AN UNDERTAKING (CCP SECTIONS 995.360 & 995.430)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JOHN J. POWERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT DISCOVERY

2/19/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JOHN J. POWERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT DISCOVERY

Motion for Leave - DEFENDANT JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT DISCOVERY

2/19/2020: Motion for Leave - DEFENDANT JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT DISCOVERY

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING UNDER SEAL UNREDACTED MPAS AND EXS. D-I, K-N, AND P-X TO THE DECLARATION OF JOHN J. POWERS ISO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT DISCOVERY

2/19/2020: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING UNDER SEAL UNREDACTED MPAS AND EXS. D-I, K-N, AND P-X TO THE DECLARATION OF JOHN J. POWERS ISO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT DISCOVERY

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF BRIAN D. WITZER IN SUPPORT THEREOF

3/2/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF BRIAN D. WITZER IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Notice of Lodging - PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF LODGING UNDER SEAL UNREDACTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND EXHIBITS 2-7, 10 TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN D. WITZER IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITIO

3/2/2020: Notice of Lodging - PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF LODGING UNDER SEAL UNREDACTED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND EXHIBITS 2-7, 10 TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN D. WITZER IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITIO

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-01-12 00:00:00

1/12/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-01-12 00:00:00

Notice of Ruling

2/23/2018: Notice of Ruling

Stipulation and Order - JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

3/17/2020: Stipulation and Order - JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/17/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT D...)

3/12/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT D...)

Minute Order -

1/12/2018: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF LIEN

1/4/2012: NOTICE OF LIEN

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL 29

6/19/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL 29

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 24 TO EXCLUDE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO LIMIT, OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS EXPERT WITNESS ROBERT BAMSHAD, M.D.

6/5/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 24 TO EXCLUDE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO LIMIT, OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS EXPERT WITNESS ROBERT BAMSHAD, M.D.

Separate Statement

3/18/2019: Separate Statement

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT''S CHARITY WORK

4/23/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT''S CHARITY WORK

565 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/08/2021
  • Hearing03/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2021
  • Hearing02/02/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion - Other (For Preference) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • DocketOpposition (to Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 31 to Limit Opinions and Testimony of Ronald Fisk, M.D.); Filed by Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other For Preference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2021
  • DocketNotice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by Johnson & Johnson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2021
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion for Preference); Filed by Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketOpposition (DEFENDANT JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.?S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF?S MOTION FOR PREFERENCE); Filed by Johnson & Johnson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketMotion in Limine (Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.?S Motion In Limine No. 31 To Limit Opinions And Testimony Of Plaintiff?s Expert Witness Ronald Fisk, M.D.); Filed by Johnson & Johnson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration Of John J. Powers In Support Of Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.?S Motion In Limine No. 31 To Limit Opinions And Testimony Of Plaintiff?s Expert Witness Ronald Fisk, M.D.; Exhibits A To E); Filed by Johnson & Johnson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
1,625 More Docket Entries
  • 12/02/2008
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2008-12-02 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2008
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Johnson & Johnson (Defendant); McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals (Defendant); McKesson Corporation (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2008
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Johnson & Johnson (Defendant); McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals (Defendant); McKesson Corporation (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2008
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department Legacy; (OSC-Failure to Prosecute Case; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2008
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2008-11-12 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2008
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2008
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2008
  • DocketNotice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2008
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2008
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff); Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC058023    Hearing Date: January 12, 2021    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka

Department B

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

Calendar No. 10

PROCEEDINGS

Christopher Trejo v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.

YC058023

  1. Christopher Trejo’s Motion for Trial Preference

TENTATIVE RULING

Christopher Trejo’s Motion for Trial Preference is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff moves for a trial preference pursuant to CCP § 36(e) and (f).

Code of Civil Procedure section 36 states, in relevant part:

“(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference.

(f) Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or a party's attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record. Any continuance shall be for no more than 15 days and no more than one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party.”

“[T]he decision to grant or deny a preferential trial setting rests at all times in the sound discretion of the trial court in light of the totality of the circumstances.” Salas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 342, 344.

The Court notes that a trial date has already been set in this case. The trial date is fairly imminent especially in consideration with the trial setting calendar currently in place for all cases after the numerous continuances of trial dates of all cases due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The current trial date is March 8, 2021. Yet, Plaintiff still moves for a trial preference. Plaintiff’s motion is premised upon the theory that an order granting a trial preference is necessary to ensure that the trial date commences prior to the dismissal provisions of CCP § 583.320(a)(3), CCP § 583.360, and Emergency Rule 10. According to Plaintiff, trial must commence on or before April 20, 2021 so that the provisions triggering dismissal are not applicable. Essentially, Plaintiff is concerned with the possibility of further continuances of the trial date.

First, the motion is premature. It is based on a theoretical possibility that the trial will not proceed on or before April 20, 2021. This belief is mere speculation and does not provide a showing that the interests of justice support a trial preference. Second, in the event that the Long Cause Department, at some point, is inclined to move the trial date to a date past April 20, 2021, the motion is more properly heard before the Judge who will actually be hearing the matter for trial. That Judge is in the best position to manage his or her trial calendar. Finally, denying the motion without prejudice does not prejudice Plaintiff’s rights to timely bring the matter to trial. The mandatory dismissal statutes are not absolute and a trial date can commence after the April 20, 2021 date upon a showing that the matter could not be brought to trial by that date because it was “impossible, impracticable, or futile” to do so. CCP § 538.340(c).

Therefore, the Court finds that the evidence does not support a finding that the interests of justice will be served by granting a trial preference pursuant to CCP § 36(e).

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.