This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/10/2020 at 01:33:23 (UTC).

DAVID WANG VS FOOT LOCKER REAIL, INC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/15/2018 DAVID WANG filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against FOOT LOCKER REAIL, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7087

  • Filing Date:

    05/15/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WANG DAVID

Defendants

FOOT LOCKER INC.

FOOT LOCKER REAIL INC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BECKSTRAND DWIGHT G

KENT MICHAEL J.

Defendant Attorney

WILLIAMS RYAN

 

Court Documents

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

9/8/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion))

Answer - Answer

9/8/2020: Answer - Answer

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/6/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing and Order

Reply (name extension) - Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reclassification

4/6/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reclassification

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Michael J. Kent in Support of Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Reclassify

3/6/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Michael J. Kent in Support of Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Reclassify

Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

3/6/2020: Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

8/29/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

11/6/2019: Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Michael J. Kent

11/6/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Michael J. Kent

Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

8/7/2019: Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

Proof of Personal Service

7/9/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/15/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

5/15/2018: Complaint

Summons - on Complaint

5/15/2018: Summons - on Complaint

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Reclassify: Filed By: David Wang (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 09/08/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Foot Locker Reail, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) scheduled for 09/08/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/08/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/18/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/08/2020; Result Type to Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketReply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reclassification; Filed by: David Wang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: David Wang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketOpposition TO MOTION; Filed by: Foot Locker Reail, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketThere being no judge available this date, Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) scheduled for 04/13/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 09/08/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 08/07/2019
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration of Michael Kent in Support of Motion to Reclassify; Filed by: David Wang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • DocketMotion to Reclassify; Filed by: David Wang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: David Wang (Plaintiff); As to: Foot Locker Reail, INC (Defendant); Service Date: 01/01/2018; Service Cost: 70.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: David Wang (Plaintiff); As to: Foot Locker Reail, INC (Defendant); Foot Locker, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: David Wang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/12/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/18/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC07087    Hearing Date: September 08, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff David Wang’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is DENIED. DEFENDANT FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC. IS TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff David Wang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (“Defendant Foot Locker Retail”) and Foot Locker, Inc. for discrimination on the basis of disability and race/national origin. Proof of personal service was filed on July 9, 2018 demonstrating service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Foot Locker Retail on June 1, 2018.

On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reclassify the Action to a Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction. On August 27, 2019, Defendant Foot Locker Retail removed the action to federal court and the hearing dates were vacated; the case was remanded on October 28, 2019. On November 6, 2019, Plaintiff again filed a Motion to Reclassify, then filed an Amended Motion to Reclassify on March 3, 2020. Defendant Foot Locker Retail filed an opposition on March 30, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on April 6, 2020.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (CCP § 403.040(a).) If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (CCP § 403.040(b).) In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)

In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set forth in Walker and held that “the court should reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain and clear.” (Id. at 279.) Nevertheless, the plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

The initial time for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings does not appear to have passed because there is no responsive pleading on file for either Defendant. Plaintiff, therefore, only needs to show that this case is incorrectly classified. Plaintiff’s evidence of the amount in controversy, however, is insufficient. Plaintiff relies solely on the declaration of counsel, Michael J. Kent. (Motion, Kent Decl.) Kent states without supporting evidence that at the time of his termination from employment Plaintiff was earning “a substantial income from Defendants in the high six figures, if not low seven figures” and has lost income “well above $100,000.00.” (Id. at ¶3.) No explanation is provided for how this apparently hearsay information is within Kent’s personal knowledge. (Id. at ¶¶1-3.) The declaration contains only a bare statement of personal knowledge regarding the facts in the declaration. (Id. at ¶1.) “Where the facts stated do not themselves show it, such bare statement of the affiant has no redeeming value and should be ignored.” (Snider v.

Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 754.) The Motion attaches no declaration from Plaintiff, nor does it attach any documentary evidence of Plaintiff’s income at the time of termination, amount of lost income, or other damages.

Regarding the statement in Defendant Foot Locker Retail’s Notice of Removal to Federal Court that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, no evidence submitted in support of that claim either. (Motion, Kent Decl., Exh. 2.) Furthermore, the Notice of Removal relied solely on Plaintiff’s contention in the Motion to Reclassify. (Id. at ¶¶24-25.)

Therefore, no the competent evidence demonstrates the probability that Plaintiff’s damages will exceed the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

Conclusion

Plaintiff David Wang’s Motion to Reclassify Action is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC07087    Hearing Date: September 03, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff David Wang’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is DENIED. DEFENDANT FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC. IS TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff David Wang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (“Defendant Foot Locker Retail”) and Foot Locker, Inc. for discrimination on the basis of disability and race/national origin. Proof of personal service was filed on July 9, 2018 demonstrating service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Foot Locker Retail on June 1, 2018.

On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reclassify the Action to a Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction. On August 27, 2019, Defendant Foot Locker Retail removed the action to federal court and the hearing dates were vacated; the case was remanded on October 28, 2019. On November 6, 2019, Plaintiff again filed a Motion to Reclassify, then filed an Amended Motion to Reclassify on March 3, 2020. Defendant Foot Locker Retail filed an opposition on March 30, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on April 6, 2020.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (CCP § 403.040(a).) If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (CCP § 403.040(b).) In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)

In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set forth in Walker and held that “the court should reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain and clear.” (Id. at 279.) Nevertheless, the plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

The initial time for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings does not appear to have passed because there is no responsive pleading on file for either Defendant. Plaintiff, therefore, only needs to show that this case is incorrectly classified. Plaintiff’s evidence of the amount in controversy, however, is insufficient. Plaintiff relies solely on the declaration of counsel, Michael J. Kent. (Motion, Kent Decl.) Kent states without supporting evidence that at the time of his termination from employment Plaintiff was earning “a substantial income from Defendants in the high six figures, if not low seven figures” and has lost income “well above $100,000.00.” (Id. at ¶3.) No explanation is provided for how this apparently hearsay information is within Kent’s personal knowledge. (Id. at ¶¶1-3.) The declaration contains only a bare statement of personal knowledge regarding the facts in the declaration. (Id. at ¶1.) “Where the facts stated do not themselves show it, such bare statement of the affiant has no redeeming value and should be ignored.” (Snider v.

Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 754.) The Motion attaches no declaration from Plaintiff, nor does it attach any documentary evidence of Plaintiff’s income at the time of termination, amount of lost income, or other damages.

Regarding the statement in Defendant Foot Locker Retail’s Notice of Removal to Federal Court that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, no evidence submitted in support of that claim either. (Motion, Kent Decl., Exh. 2.) Furthermore, the Notice of Removal relied solely on Plaintiff’s contention in the Motion to Reclassify. (Id. at ¶¶24-25.)

Therefore, no the competent evidence demonstrates the probability that Plaintiff’s damages will exceed the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

Conclusion

Plaintiff David Wang’s Motion to Reclassify Action is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.