73 Cal.App.5th 792
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Petitioner George Isaak, an 84‑year‑old with progressive Parkinson’s disease allegedly from Paraquat exposure, sued Paraquat manufacturers; his case was coordinated into the Paraquat JCCP (JCCP 5031).
- Isaak moved for statutory trial preference under Code Civ. Proc. § 36 (age >70; substantial interest; health makes preference necessary), seeking a December 2021 trial date.
- The trial court found Isaak met § 36’s factual criteria but denied immediate § 36 relief because the matter was in a coordinated proceeding with discovery incomplete and complex causation issues.
- Instead the court adopted a preference protocol under California Rules of Court, rule 3.504(c), creating a Preference Committee and procedures to evaluate and sequence preference/bellwether cases in the JCCP.
- Isaak petitioned for a writ of mandate arguing § 36 required immediate calendar preference; the Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding § 36 does not override the Judicial Council’s coordination rules authorized by Code Civ. Proc. § 404.7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Code Civ. Proc. § 36 requires immediate trial preference in a case that is part of a Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) | Isaak: § 36 is mandatory; once statutory criteria are met the trial court must set trial within 120 days. | Real parties/JCCP: § 404.7 and rule 3.504(c) authorize Judicial Council rules that apply "notwithstanding any other provision of law," permitting alternative procedures in coordinated proceedings. | The court held § 404.7 and rule 3.504(c) permit the assigned judge to adopt procedures (like the preference protocol); § 36 does not supersede the Judicial Council’s coordination rules, and denial of immediate § 36 preference was not error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.App.5th 529 (2018) (recognizing § 36 as mandatory where its criteria are met in non‑coordinated cases)
- Keenan v. Superior Court, 111 Cal.App.3d 336 (1980) (noting Judicial Council rules may supersede contrary statutes in coordination matters)
- Visalia Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.App.5th 563 (2019) (interpreting the broad effect of statutory "notwithstanding any other provision of law")
- Vinokur v. Superior Court, 198 Cal.App.3d 500 (1988) (holding § 36 prevailed over the Judicial Arbitration Act in that context)
- Faulder v. Mendocino County Bd. of Supervisors, 144 Cal.App.4th 1362 (2006) (discussing scope and import of "notwithstanding" clauses)
- Miller v. Superior Court, 221 Cal.App.3d 1200 (1990) (describing § 36 as granting an absolute right to trial preference)