This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/20/2019 at 18:45:25 (UTC).

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS JOSEPH EDWARD GIANCASPRO

Case Summary

On 12/21/2017 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JOSEPH EDWARD GIANCASPRO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELAINE LU. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5478

  • Filing Date:

    12/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendant

GIANCASPRO JOSEPH EDWARD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SMITH STEPHEN HENSLEE

Defendant Attorney

GIBBS PATRICK JOSEPH

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement - Case Management Statement

7/10/2019: Case Management Statement - Case Management Statement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Trial Setting Conference; Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Wa...)

7/17/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Trial Setting Conference; Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Wa...)

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

8/9/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Notice (name extension) - of Action

1/31/2018: Notice (name extension) - of Action

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/26/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer

5/10/2018: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

5/10/2018: Demand for Jury Trial

Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

3/7/2019: Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition defendants opposition to plaintiffs motion

4/9/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition defendants opposition to plaintiffs motion

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion))

4/25/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion))

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion)) of 04/25/2019

4/25/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion)) of 04/25/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

4/29/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment Pursuant to Recusal) of 04/29/2019

4/29/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment Pursuant to Recusal) of 04/29/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment Pursuant to Recusal)

4/29/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment Pursuant to Recusal)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 04/29/2019

4/29/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 04/29/2019

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/21/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

12/21/2017: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

12/21/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by County of Los Angeles on 12/21/2017, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by County of Los Angeles as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 09/30/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/12/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) scheduled for 09/30/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/12/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: County of Los Angeles (Plaintiff); As to: Joseph Edward Giancaspro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 09/30/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) scheduled for 09/30/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Trial Setting Conference; Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Wa...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Trial Setting Conference scheduled for 07/17/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 09/30/2019 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) scheduled for 07/17/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 09/30/2019 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by: Joseph Edward Giancaspro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
17 More Docket Entries
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: County of Los Angeles (Plaintiff); As to: Joseph Edward Giancaspro (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 02/18/18; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketNotice of Action; Filed by: County of Los Angeles (Plaintiff); As to: Joseph Edward Giancaspro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Elaine Lu in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/24/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: County of Los Angeles (Plaintiff); As to: Joseph Edward Giancaspro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: County of Los Angeles (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Tentative Rulings - Main Menu     Home


Case Number: 17STLC05478    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: 94

Sandra Tolbert v. City of Los Angeles, et al

MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Sandra Tolbert’s Motion for Reclassification is CONTINUED to March 16, 2020 at 10:30 am in Department 94.

ANALYSIS:

I. Discussion

On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff Sandra Tolbert (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) alleging claims for premises liability and negligence. On March 7, 2018, Defendant filed its answer. Thereafter, on July 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify (the “Motion”).

II. Legal Standard

“If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party to amend that party’s initial pleading or to respond to a complaint, cross-complaint, or other initial pleading, the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both of the following conditions are satisfied:”

(1) The case is incorrectly classified.

(2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.”

(CCP § 403.040(b).)

The appropriate standard for determining whether an action should be reclassified from a limited to an unlimited jurisdiction court is not whether the damages “realistically” will exceed the jurisdictional threshold of recovery, but rather whether it is possible that the damages will. (See Maldonado v. Superior Court of Orange County (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 402 [“the trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability.”].) The plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000, then the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000 is obtainable.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 279.)

III. Analysis

Plaintiff’s motion is brought after the time for it to amend the Complaint, so she must demonstrate both that the case is incorrectly classified and that the motion is timely.

Plaintiff asserts that she seeks reclassification on the basis that recent discovery has shown that recovery should be in excess of the jurisdictional amount of a limited jurisdiction classification. Plaintiff contends that medical bills are still being incurred and Plaintiff suffered loss of her eye, which is causing her significant pain and suffering. Plaintiff states that the new information was brought forth in Plaintiff’s deposition on May 1, 2019, where it was revealed that there was a link between Defendant’s negligence and Plaintiff’s blindness in one eye.

As evidence, Plaintiff submits only the declaration of her attorney stating that Plaintiff did not inform her counsel of her eye injury, but that counsel believes that Plaintiff’s eye injury was caused by Defendant’s negligence. (Mot. Ahn Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff’s counsel believes that damages will exceed $25,000.000. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

However, the declaration does not offer any facts demonstrating Plaintiff’s attorney’s basis for such knowledge, nor is the declaration corroborated by any documentary evidence of the amount of damages allegedly incurred by Plaintiff, such as copies of medical bills. Plaintiff has not provided evidence that demonstrates the possibility that its damages exceed the jurisdictional limit of this court. Furthermore, while Plaintiff states that the relevant information was discovered in her deposition on May 1, 2019, no explanation is offered for why this information could not have been discovered earlier or why Plaintiff waited almost three months after her deposition to file the instant motion. Thus, the court cannot find good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to bring this motion earlier.

The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to reclassify is continued to March 16, 2020 at 10:30 am in Department 94 to allow Plaintiff to submit competent evidence regarding the factors discussed above. Plaintiff’s supplemental briefing and evidence are to be filed at least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date. Failure to comply with the court’s orders may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied. Opposition and reply papers to be filed per the Code of Civil Procedure.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.