This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/21/2021 at 02:20:45 (UTC).

DZMITRY SUYETSIN VS NATHAN KHOA DANG NGUYEN

Case Summary

On 12/26/2019 DZMITRY SUYETSIN filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against NATHAN KHOA DANG NGUYEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1732

  • Filing Date:

    12/26/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SUYETSIN DZMITRY

Defendant

NGUYEN NATHAN KHOA DANG

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

XU YING

Defendant Attorneys

RICKETT REBECCA

MYERS JEFF CABOT

MYERS JEFFREY CABOT

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

10/7/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Changing Time of Hearing of Motion to Reclassify)

10/7/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Changing Time of Hearing of Motion to Reclassify)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Notice of Related Case)

10/7/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Notice of Related Case)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Notice of Related Case) of 10/07/2021

10/7/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Notice of Related Case) of 10/07/2021

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Changing Time of Hearing of Motion to Reclassify) of 10/07/2021

10/7/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Changing Time of Hearing of Motion to Reclassify) of 10/07/2021

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

9/29/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case

9/20/2021: Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case

Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

9/14/2021: Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

9/14/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion to Continue Trial Date - Motion to Continue Trial Date

9/14/2021: Motion to Continue Trial Date - Motion to Continue Trial Date

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

9/14/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion))

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

9/15/2021: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

8/9/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion))

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/10/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/10/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continued Hearing

8/10/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continued Hearing

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

3/4/2021: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

3/9/2021: Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

17 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/29/2022
  • Hearing12/29/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • Hearing10/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2021
  • Hearing10/21/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Continue Trial Date: Filed By: Dzmitry Suyetsin (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 10/07/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketCase reassigned to Spring Street Courthouse in Department 28 - Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketCase numbers 19STLC11732, 19STCV34204 are related; case number 19STCV34204 is the lead case.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketAddress for Ying Xu (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re: Notice of Related Case)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Notice of Related Case) of 10/07/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
37 More Docket Entries
  • 05/01/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Rebecca Rickett (Attorney): Organization Name changed from Santa Cruz, Brownwood & Cannon to LAW OFFICES OF SANTA CRUZ, CANNON & KOTHARY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • DocketGeneral Denial; Filed by: Nathan Khoa Dang Nguyen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Nathan Khoa Dang Nguyen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/29/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Dzmitry Suyetsin (Plaintiff); As to: Nathan Khoa Dang Nguyen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Dzmitry Suyetsin (Plaintiff); As to: Nathan Khoa Dang Nguyen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Dzmitry Suyetsin (Plaintiff); As to: Nathan Khoa Dang Nguyen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19STLC11732 Hearing Date: October 21, 2021 Dept: 28

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reclassification to Unlimited Jurisdiction

\r\n\r\n

Having reviewed the motion, the Court rules as follows.

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

\r\nOn December 26, 2019, Plaintiff Dzmitry Suyetsin (“Plaintiff”) filed a\r\nComplaint against Defendant Nathan Khoa Dang Nguyen (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 –\r\n25, inclusive, alleging 1 cause of action arising from a motor vehicle\r\ncollision that occurred on January 25, 2018.

\r\n\r\n

On March 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reclassification.

\r\n\r\n

\r\nOn September 14, 2021, Hon. Judge Katherine Chilton denied the motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\nAlso on September 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a new Motion for Reconsideration.

\r\n\r\n

On October 7, 2021, the case was reassigned to Hon. Judge Daniel\r\nM. Crowley in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

\r\n\r\n

Trial is set for October 25, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

PARTY’S REQUEST

\r\n\r\n

\r\nPlaintiff requests the Court reclassify the case on the basis that damages may\r\nexceed $25,000.00.

\r\n\r\n

LEGAL STANDARD

\r\n\r\n

Actions in which the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less are\r\nclassified as limited jurisdiction cases. (Code Civ. Proc. § 86, subd.\r\n(a)(1).) California Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 provides, in\r\nrelevant part:

\r\n\r\n

“(a) The plaintiff . . .\r\nmay file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party\r\nto amend the initial pleading. The defendant . . . may file a motion for\r\nreclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the\r\ninitial pleading. . . . The court shall grant the motion and enter an order for\r\nreclassification, regardless of any fault or lack of fault, if the case has\r\nbeen classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification. \r\n(b) If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for\r\nthat party to amend that party’s initial pleading or to respond to a complaint,\r\ncross-complaint, or other initial pleading, the court shall grant the motion\r\nand enter an order for reclassification only if both of the following\r\nconditions are satisfied: \r\n(1) The case is incorrectly classified. \r\n(2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification\r\nearlier.”

\r\n\r\n

“The [trial] court may believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff\r\nwill recover the amount demanded, but this is not enough to defeat\r\njurisdiction, unless it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot\r\nrecover the amount [of the] demand[].” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court\r\n(2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 277 [citing Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p.\r\n270] (internal quotations omitted); see also Maldonado v. Superior Court of\r\nOrange County (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 402 [“the trial court looks to the\r\npossibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its\r\nprobability”].).

\r\n\r\n

DISCUSSION

\r\n\r\n

\r\nPlaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on January 25,\r\n2018. At the time of filing, Plaintiff believed his property damages and bodily\r\ninjuries totaled more than $10,000.00 but less than $25,000.00. As a result,\r\nthe case was filed as a Limited Jurisdiction case. Plaintiff subsequently\r\nrequired medical treatment that he later learned was allegedly a product of the\r\nmotor vehicle collision, rather than an independent injury. Specifically, an\r\nMRI allegedly revealed that the motor vehicle collision in January 2018 was the\r\ncause of neck pain and radicular pain that began in April 2019 and has\r\nnecessitated extensive medical treatment. Plaintiff continues to suffer\r\ninjuries to this day and will need future medical care.

\r\n\r\n

\r\nPlaintiff submits medical records from April 2019 and May 2019 that indicate\r\nthat his ongoing injuries may be a product of the January 2018 motor vehicle\r\ncollision.

\r\n\r\n

\r\nPlaintiff now contends that the cost of his medical treatment alone may eclipse\r\nthe limited jurisdiction threshold. Plaintiff also contends that the pain &\r\nsuffering resulting from his injuries could result in general damages that also\r\nexceed the limited jurisdiction.

\r\n\r\n

While\r\nthe bar to reclassify to a limited jurisdiction is a high one, the bar to\r\nreclassify to an unlimited jurisdiction is comparably low. A plaintiff must\r\nonly demonstrate that there is a possibility of their recovery eclipsing $25,000.00,\r\nnot a probability that such will be the case. (Maldonado, supra, 45\r\nCal.App.4th at 402.) Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has done that. Based\r\non the evidence submitted, there is a possibility that a jury could award more\r\nthan $25,000.00 to Plaintiff. Having this case remain in limited jurisdiction\r\nwould therefore prejudice Plaintiff and may cut off recovery which he is owed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\nDefendant files no Opposition to the motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\nThe motion is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

CONCLUSION

\r\n\r\n

\r\nPlaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify to Unlimited Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\nPlaintiff is ordered to give notice.

'b"

Case Number: 19STLC11732 Hearing Date: October 7, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Dzmitry Suyetsin

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

\r\n\r\n

(CRC,\r\nRule 3.1332)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nDzmitry Suyetsin’s Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC,\r\nrule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)\r\n OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c,\r\n1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None\r\nfiled as of October 5, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None\r\nfiled as of October 5, 2021 [ ]\r\nLate [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 26, 2019, Plaintiff\r\nDzmitry Suyetsin (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Nathan Khoa\r\nDang Nguyen (“Nguyen”). Defendant filed a general denial on January 3, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed a motion for\r\nreclassification on March 18, 2021, which the Court denied on September 14. (9/14/21\r\nMinute Order.) In doing so, the Court found Plaintiff had not sufficiently\r\ndemonstrated an award of over $25,000.00 in damages was possible. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Pursuant to the parties'\r\nstipulation, on May 12, the Court continued the trial from June 24, 2021 to\r\nOctober 25, 2021. (5/12/21 Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On September 14, Plaintiff filed a\r\nrenewed motion for reclassification, which is set for hearing for October 21,\r\n2021. That same day, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial (the\r\n“Motion”). No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal Standard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request\r\nfor a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an\r\naffirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Id.)\r\nThe Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial\r\ncontinuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there\r\nwas any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the\r\ncontinuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the\r\nproblem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or\r\nwitnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial\r\ncounsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, Cal. Rules of Court, rule\r\n3.1332, subd. (d)(1)-(11).) Additionally, factors for the\r\nCourt to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential\r\ntestimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the\r\nproximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a\r\ncontinuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair\r\ndetermination of the motion or application. \r\n(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff argues a trial continuance is necessary because he\r\nhas filed a motion for reclassification of the action and because the earliest\r\nhearing date for a hearing on that motion is on November 22, 2021, almost a\r\nmonth after the current October 25 trial date. (Mot., p. 3; Xu Decl., ¶ 6.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

However, Plaintiff filed and noticed his motion for\r\nreclassification for October 21, 2021, not November 22, 2021. Indeed,\r\nthe motion for reclassification is on the Court’s October 21, 2021 10:00 a.m.\r\ncalendar. Thus, the motion for reclassification will be heard before the\r\nOctober 25 trial date, eliminating Plaintiff’s concerns.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Because Plaintiff has presented no valid reason to continue\r\nthe trial date, the Motion is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion & Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on the\r\nforegoing, Plaintiff Dzmitry Suyetsin’s Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is\r\nordered to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

"b"

Case Number: 19STLC11732 Hearing Date: September 14, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Dzmitry Suyetsin

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 403.040)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nDzmitry Suyetsin’s Motion for Reclassification is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None\r\nfiled as of September 10, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None\r\nfiled as of September 10, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 26, 2019, Plaintiff\r\nDzmitry Suyetsin (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Nathan Khoa\r\nDang Nguyen (“Nguyen”). Defendant filed a general denial on January 3, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion\r\nfor Reclassification (the “Motion”) on March 18, 2021. The initial August 9\r\nhearing was continued due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a proof of service\r\ndemonstrating Defendant was given adequate notice of this Motion. (8/9/21\r\nMinute Order.) Plaintiff filed the requested proofs of service on August 10,\r\n2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal Standard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a\r\nplaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time\r\nallowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n403.040, subd. (a).) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of\r\ncourt at any time before an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or\r\nafter a demurrer or motion to strike is filed if the amended pleading is filed\r\nand served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion\r\nto strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).) If the motion is made after the\r\ntime for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if\r\n(1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause\r\nfor not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California\r\nSupreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited\r\nonly if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will\r\nnecessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker\r\nv. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the\r\ndamages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Id.) This high standard is appropriate\r\nin light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited\r\ncivil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court\r\n(2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This action arises out of an alleged\r\nautomobile accident that occurred on January 25, 2018. (Compl., p. 4.) In\r\nseeking to reclassify this action, Plaintiff explains that this case was\r\ninitially filed in limited jurisdiction court due to confusion about the\r\norigins of Plaintiff’s ongoing symptoms. (Mot., p. 5.) Plaintiff argues that “due\r\nto lack of documentary evidence corroborating Mr. Suyetsin’s memories of persistent\r\ninjury symptoms prior to [an unrelated] 2019 fall, this case was\r\nmisclassified.” (Id.) Relying on “newly discovered medical\r\nrecords,” Plaintiff argues that the injuries from the subject car accident\r\n“bothered him much longer” than first believed, that Plaintiff continued to\r\nhave daily pain attributable to the subject accident, and that a reasonable\r\njury could award a verdict in excess of $25,000.00. (Id. at p. 7.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court is not persuaded. Under Ytuarte, Plaintiff must\r\nstill present sufficient evidence demonstrating that a possibility that Plaintiff’s\r\ndamages will exceed $25,000.00. (Ytuarte v.\r\nSuperior Court, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 279.) Here, Plaintiff\r\nincorporated two small screenshots of what Plaintiff states is his deposition\r\ntranscript into the body of the memorandum. However, because the deposition\r\nitself with a court reporter’s certification was not included, these\r\nscreenshots hold no evidentiary value. Plaintiff also attached a copy of a\r\n3-page medical office visit “note” dated April 19, 2019. (Id., Xu Decl.,\r\n¶ 9, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel argues this note “provides, clearly and\r\nconvincingly” that Plaintiff continued to have “significant” pain more than a\r\nyear after the crash. (Id. at ¶ 10.) This report, however, states that\r\nPlaintiff described his pain only as a “2-3” out of a 10-point scale. (Id.)\r\nIt also contains no diagnosis or other information that may allow the Court to\r\nconclude that a verdict in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable; it only contains\r\nintake information. (Id., Exh. A.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Because\r\nPlaintiff did not present sufficient evidence, the Motion is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion & Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the\r\nforegoing reasons, Plaintiff Dzmitry Suyetsin’s Motion for Reclassification is DENIED.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is\r\nordered to give notice.

"b'

Case Number: 19STLC11732 Hearing Date: August 9, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Dzmitry Suyetsin

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 403.040)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nDzmitry Suyetsin’s Motion for Reclassification is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 14,\r\n2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least\r\nfive (5) court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file a\r\nproof of service demonstrating Defendant was served with the Motion and notice\r\nof continued hearing. Failure to do so will result in the Motion being placed\r\noff calendar or denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule\r\n3.1300) NO

\r\n\r\n

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

\r\n\r\n

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c,\r\n1005(b)) NO

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None\r\nfiled as of August 5, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None\r\nfiled as of August 5, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 26, 2019, Plaintiff\r\nDzmitry Suyetsin (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Nathan Khoa\r\nDang Nguyen (“Nguyen”). Defendant filed a general denial on January 3, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion\r\nfor Reclassification (the “Motion”) on March 18, 2021. No opposition was filed.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Before considering the merits of\r\ninstant Motion, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not file a proof of service\r\ndemonstrating the Motion was properly served on Defendant. Failure to give\r\nnotice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of\r\ndue process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones\r\nv. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) The Court cannot rule on the\r\nMotion until Defendant has been given proper notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nConclusion & Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the\r\nforegoing reasons, Plaintiff Dzmitry Suyetsin’s Motion for Reclassification is\r\nCONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING\r\nSTREET COURTHOUSE. At least five (5) court days before the next scheduled\r\nhearing, Plaintiff must file a proof of service demonstrating Defendant was\r\nserved with the Motion and notice of continued hearing. Failure to do so will\r\nresult in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is\r\nordered to give notice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer RICKETT, REBECCA R.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MYERS JEFFREY CABOT