Calendar preference

Rule 8.240 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; repealed and adopted as rule 19 effective January 1, 2003.

Rule 8.240 requires a party claiming preference to file a motion for preference in the reviewing court. The motion requirement relieves the reviewing court of the burden of searching the record to determine if preference should be ordered. The requirement is not intended to bar the court from ordering preference without a motion when the ground is apparent on the face of the appeal, e.g., in appeals from judgments of dependency (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395).

The rule is broad in scope: it includes motions for preference on the grounds (1) that a statute provides for preference in the reviewing court (e.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 44 [probate proceedings, contested elections, libel by public official), 45 [judgment freeing minor from parental custody]); (2) that the reviewing court should exercise its discretion to grant preference when a statute provides for trial preference (e.g., id., §§ 35 [certain election matters], 36 [party over 70 and in poor health; party with terminal illness; minor in wrongful death action]; see Warren v. Schecter (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1198-1199); and (3) that the reviewing court should exercise its discretion to grant preference on a nonstatutory ground (e.g., economic hardship).

Because valid grounds for preference could arise after the filing of the reply brief, e.g., a diagnosis of terminal illness, the rule requires the motion to be filed "promptly," i.e., as soon as the ground for preference arises.