On 06/09/2017 TOLBERT, SANDRA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
CALIFORNIA INJURY LAW FIRM
PETERS THOMAS HARRY
7/30/2019: Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify
6/9/2017: Complaint - Complaint Other Premise Liability
6/9/2017: Summons - Summons
6/9/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
3/7/2018: Proof of Personal Service
12/10/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)
5/8/2019: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial, FSC and Related Motion/Discovery Dates
5/9/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
Hearingat 0830 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 0830 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion)Read MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) scheduled for 11/13/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Reclassify; Filed by: SANDRA TOLBERT (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: SANDRA TOLBERT (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial: Status Date changed from 05/08/2019 to 05/08/2019; Name Extension changed from Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial, FSC and Related Motion/Discovery Dates to to Continue Trial; As To Parties changed from SANDRA TOLBERT (Plaintiff) to SANDRA TOLBERT (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial, FSC and Related Motion/Discovery Dates; Filed by: CITY OF LOS ANGELES (Defendant); As to: SANDRA TOLBERT (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/10/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 08/13/2019 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/10/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)Read MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- SANDRA TOLBERT (Plaintiff): Middle Name: blankRead MoreRead Less
DocketPursuant to the request of plaintiff, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/10/2018 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion was rescheduled to 05/10/2019 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by: CITY OF LOS ANGELES (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: SANDRA TOLBERT (Plaintiff); As to: CITY OF LOS ANGELES (Defendant); Service Cost: 50.00; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 77Read MoreRead Less
DocketNON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 12/10/18, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77Read MoreRead Less
DocketOSC SET 06/09/20, 08:30 AM, DEPT. 77 PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDERRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: SANDRA TOLBERT (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FILED - OTHER PREMISE LIABILITY Filing Fee: 370.00Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONS FILEDRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 17K07445 Hearing Date: November 13, 2019 Dept: 94
Sandra Tolbert v. City of Los Angeles, et al
MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION
(CCP § 403.040)
Plaintiff Sandra Tolbert’s Motion for Reclassification is CONTINUED to March 16, 2020 at 10:30 am in Department 94.
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.)
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases