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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RAMONA G. SEE
WILLIAM G. WILLETT
ROBERT H. O'BRIEN
DUDLEY W. GRAY II
DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB
RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY
MCNEIL CONSUMER & SPECIALTY PAHARMACEUTIC
THE KROGER CO. AN OHIO CORP.
SAV-ON DRUGS CALIF. CORP.
MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE DIV. OF
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CVS/CAREMARK RHODE ISLAND 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
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.
PULLIAM THOMAS W.
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
THOMAS W. PULLIAM JR.
SUTHERLAND KARI L.
ZVOLEFF VERNON I. ESQ.
HEWES MICHAEL B.
CARROLL KELLY TROTTER FRANZEN & MCKENNA
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ZVOLEFF VERNON IVAN ESQ.
ABERNETHY DAVID F
1/11/2018: NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHARGING LIEN
2/13/2018: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER WITHDRAWING AN UNDERTAKING (CCP SECTIONS 995.360 & 995.430)
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
2/19/2020: Motion for Leave - DEFENDANT JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE 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
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
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
1/12/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-01-12 00:00:00
2/23/2018: Notice of Ruling
3/17/2020: Stipulation and Order - JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES
3/17/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
3/12/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN LIMITED FACT D...)
1/12/2018: Minute Order -
1/4/2012: NOTICE OF LIEN
6/19/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MIL 29
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.
3/18/2019: Separate Statement
4/23/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT''S CHARITY WORK
Hearing03/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing02/02/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion - Other (For Preference) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
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
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other For Preference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by Johnson & Johnson (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion for Preference); Filed by Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (DEFENDANT JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.?S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF?S MOTION FOR PREFERENCE); Filed by Johnson & Johnson (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
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
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
DocketMinute order entered: 2008-12-02 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
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
DocketAnswer; Filed by Johnson & Johnson (Defendant); McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals (Defendant); McKesson Corporation (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department Legacy; (OSC-Failure to Prosecute Case; Matter continued) -Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2008-11-12 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice; Filed by Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice; Filed by Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNoticeRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff); Christopher Trejo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: YC058023 Hearing Date: January 12, 2021 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
Calendar No. 10
Christopher Trejo v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.
Christopher Trejo’s Motion for Trial Preference
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.