This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/09/2020 at 03:11:11 (UTC).

JOSE AYALA VS DAVID VIRUETE

Case Summary

On 05/22/2020 JOSE AYALA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DAVID VIRUETE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4402

  • Filing Date:

    05/22/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AYALA JOSE

Defendant

VIRUETE DAVID

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

CORIA SUSANO

AVINA GABRIEL HERRERA

Defendant Attorney

LINDNER JUDITH

 

Court Documents

Answer - Answer

7/30/2020: Answer - Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

7/30/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Summons - Summons on Complaint

6/3/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

5/22/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Complaint - Complaint

5/22/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

5/22/2020: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/22/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

5/22/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

5/22/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/26/2023
  • Hearing05/26/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • Hearing11/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: David Viruete (Defendant); As to: Jose Ayala (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: David Viruete (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Jose Ayala (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jose Ayala (Plaintiff); As to: David Viruete (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2020
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by: Jose Ayala (Plaintiff); As to: David Viruete (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Jose Ayala (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jose Ayala (Plaintiff); As to: David Viruete (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Jose Ayala (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/26/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 20STLC04402 Hearing Date: August 24, 2021 Dept: 26

Hearing Date:August 11, 2021 continued to this date to allow Defendant to be heard.

Ayala v. Viruete, et al. 20STLC04402

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jose Ayala’s Motion to Reclassify Action to Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Jose Ayala (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant David Viruete (“Defendant”) on May 22, 2020. Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on July 30, 2020.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on April 21, 2021. Defendant filed an opposition on June 21, 2021 and Plaintiff replied on June 22, 2021.

Discussion

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).)

The initial time for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings having passed, the Motion must show both that the case is incorrectly classified and good cause for the timing of the Motion. 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.) In Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278, 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.)

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on October 18, 2018. (Compl., ¶MV-1.) In August 2018, Plaintiff was involved in a prior motor vehicle accident that aggravated a high school football injury to his left shoulder. (Motion, Ayala Decl., ¶2.) This injury was further aggravated by the accident on October 18, 2018. (Ibid.) From October 2018 to February 2019, Plaintiff received non-surgical treatments for his injuries. (Id. at ¶¶4-6 and Exhs. 3-8.) From June 2020 to September 2020, Plaintiff continued treating with physical therapy. (Id. at ¶¶7-8 and Exhs. 9-12.) Despite recommendations for steroid injections during these treatments, Plaintiff opted for non-invasive treatments. (Ibid.) From August 3, 2020 to February 2021, Plaintiff went for additional consultations and an MRI of his left shoulder. (Id. at ¶¶9-11 and Exhs. 13-15.) Plaintiff has submitted evidence that known specials, not including the scheduled left shoulder surgery for May 6, 2021, are $12,903.00 as of April 21, 2021. (Id. at ¶¶12-13.) In their opposition, Defendant acknowledges receiving billing invoices obtained through discovery demonstrating that the reasonable sum of expenditures through February 7, 2020 totals $12,823.28. (Opposition, Linder Decl., ¶4.)

As evident, Plaintiff continuously sought treatment for his injuries from the time of the accident until the time this Motion was filed. The action was initially filed in the limited jurisdiction court due to Plaintiff’s conservative treatment, but based on the purported change in treatment, Plaintiff appropriately sought to reclassify the action around the time of the scheduled shoulder surgery. Thus, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause exists for the timing of the Motion.

Moreover, Plaintiff has shown that a judgment of more than $25,000.00 is possible because surgical and post-surgery recovery costs could exceed this ceiling.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Jose Ayala’s Motion to Reclassify Action to Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction is GRANTED subject to paying the reclassification fee within 10 days of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice.

"b"

Case Number: 20STLC04402 Hearing Date: August 18, 2021 Dept: 26

HEARING CONTINUED FROM 08/11/2021 TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO BE HEARD

Ayala v. Viruete, et al. 20STLC04402

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jose Ayala’s Motion to Reclassify Action to Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Jose Ayala (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant David Viruete (“Defendant”) on May 22, 2020. Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on July 30, 2020.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on April 21, 2021. Defendant filed an opposition on June 21, 2021 and Plaintiff replied on June 22, 2021.

Discussion

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).)

The initial time for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings having passed, the Motion must show both that the case is incorrectly classified and good cause for the timing of the Motion. 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.) In Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278, 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.)

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on October 18, 2018. (Compl., ¶MV-1.) In August 2018, Plaintiff was involved in a prior motor vehicle accident that aggravated a high school football injury to his left shoulder. (Motion, Ayala Decl., ¶2.) This injury was further aggravated by the accident on October 18, 2018. (Ibid.) From October 2018 to February 2019, Plaintiff received non-surgical treatments for his injuries. (Id. at ¶¶4-6 and Exhs. 3-8.) From June 2020 to September 2020, Plaintiff continued treating with physical therapy. (Id. at ¶¶7-8 and Exhs. 9-12.) Despite recommendations for steroid injections during these treatments, Plaintiff opted for non-invasive treatments. (Ibid.) From August 3, 2020 to February 2021, Plaintiff went for additional consultations and an MRI of his left shoulder. (Id. at ¶¶9-11 and Exhs. 13-15.) Plaintiff has submitted evidence that known specials, not including the scheduled left shoulder surgery for May 6, 2021, are $12,903.00 as of April 21, 2021. (Id. at ¶¶12-13.) In their opposition, Defendant acknowledges receiving billing invoices obtained through discovery demonstrating that the reasonable sum of expenditures through February 7, 2020 totals $12,823.28. (Opposition, Linder Decl., ¶4.)

As evident, Plaintiff continuously sought treatment for his injuries from the time of the accident until the time this Motion was filed. The action was initially filed in the limited jurisdiction court due to Plaintiff’s conservative treatment, but based on the purported change in treatment, Plaintiff appropriately sought to reclassify the action around the time of the scheduled shoulder surgery. Thus, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause exists for the timing of the Motion.

Moreover, Plaintiff has shown that a judgment of more than $25,000.00 is possible because surgical and post-surgery recovery costs could exceed this ceiling.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Jose Ayala’s Motion to Reclassify Action to Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction is GRANTED subject to paying the reclassification fee within 10 days of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice.

"b"

Case Number: 20STLC04402 Hearing Date: August 11, 2021 Dept: 26

Ayala v. Viruete, et al. 20STLC04402

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\r\n

Plaintiff Jose Ayala’s Motion to Reclassify Action to Court\r\nof Unlimited Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Jose Ayala (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action\r\nfor motor vehicle negligence against Defendant David Viruete (“Defendant”) on May\r\n22, 2020. Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on July 30, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on April\r\n21, 2021. Defendant filed an opposition on June 21, 2021 and Plaintiff replied\r\non June 22, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for\r\nreclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend\r\nthe initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) If the motion is\r\nmade after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may\r\nonly be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the\r\nplaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ.\r\nProc., § 403.040, subd. (b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The initial time for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings having\r\npassed, the Motion must show both that the case is incorrectly classified and\r\ngood cause for the timing of the Motion. In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the\r\nCalifornia Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited\r\nto limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's\r\ndamages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court\r\n(1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) In Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129\r\nCal.App.4th 266, 278, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set forth\r\nin Walker and held that “the\r\ncourt should reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as\r\nunlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain\r\nand clear.” (Id. at 279.)\r\nNevertheless, the plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility\r\nthat the damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the trial court must review the\r\nrecord to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.”\r\n(Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that\r\nallegedly occurred on October 18, 2018. (Compl., ¶MV-1.) In August 2018,\r\nPlaintiff was involved in a prior motor vehicle accident that aggravated a high\r\nschool football injury to his left shoulder. (Motion, Ayala Decl., ¶2.) This\r\ninjury was further aggravated by the accident on October 18, 2018. (Ibid.)\r\nFrom October 2018 to February 2019, Plaintiff received non-surgical treatments\r\nfor his injuries. (Id. at ¶¶4-6 and Exhs. 3-8.) From June 2020 to\r\nSeptember 2020, Plaintiff continued treating with physical therapy. (Id.\r\nat ¶¶7-8 and Exhs. 9-12.) Despite recommendations for steroid injections during\r\nthese treatments, Plaintiff opted for non-invasive treatments. (Ibid.)\r\nFrom August 3, 2020 to February 2021, Plaintiff went for additional\r\nconsultations and an MRI of his left shoulder. (Id. at ¶¶9-11 and Exhs.\r\n13-15.) Plaintiff has submitted evidence that known specials, not including the\r\nscheduled left shoulder surgery for May 6, 2021, are $12,903.00 as of April 21,\r\n2021. (Id. at ¶¶12-13.) In their opposition, Defendant acknowledges receiving\r\nbilling invoices obtained through discovery demonstrating that the reasonable\r\nsum of expenditures through February 7, 2020 totals $12,823.28. (Opposition, Linder\r\nDecl., ¶4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As evident, Plaintiff continuously sought treatment for his\r\ninjuries from the time of the accident until the time this Motion was filed.\r\nThe action was initially filed in the limited jurisdiction court due to\r\nPlaintiff’s conservative treatment, but based on the purported change in\r\ntreatment, Plaintiff appropriately sought to reclassify the action around the\r\ntime of the scheduled shoulder surgery. Thus, Plaintiff has demonstrated good\r\ncause exists for the timing of the Motion.

\r\n\r\n

Moreover, Plaintiff has shown that a judgment of more than\r\n$25,000.00 is possible because surgical and post-surgery recovery costs could\r\nexceed this ceiling.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Jose Ayala’s Motion to Reclassify Action to Court\r\nof Unlimited Jurisdiction is GRANTED subject to paying the reclassification fee\r\nwithin 10 days of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

"b"

Case Number: 20STLC04402 Hearing Date: July 7, 2021 Dept: 26

Due to Court's unavailability, Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) has been continued to 08/11/2021 at 10:00 a.m."

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer AVINA GABRIEL HERRERA