This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/23/2020 at 04:33:42 (UTC).

CHRISTINE THOMAS VS TARGET INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/12/2017 CHRISTINE THOMAS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TARGET INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9463

  • Filing Date:

    10/12/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

THOMAS CHRISTINE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 - 25

LEUNG QUEENIE

TARGET INC.

TARGET CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

YAGHOUBTIL FARID

HEARD RONALD ROY

HEARD RONALD ROY ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

EGAN EUGENE J. ESQ.

TSAO JEFFREY Y.

CUSTUREA ANDREEA V.

CUSTUREA ANDREEA V. ESQ.

TSAO JEFFREY Y. ESQ.

BABATAHER JOSHUA KAVEH

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

10/2/2020: Request for Dismissal

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12/17/2018: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

3/6/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (PURSUANT TO GRANTING OF MOTI...)

2/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (PURSUANT TO GRANTING OF MOTI...)

Request for Judicial Notice

1/23/2020: Request for Judicial Notice

Reply - REPLY TARGET'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/27/2019: Reply - REPLY TARGET'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING A CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING AND FILING DEADLINES (CCP 437C(H))

10/16/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING A CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING AND FILING DEADLINES (CCP 437C(H))

Separate Statement

8/13/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF IGOR FRADKIN

8/13/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF IGOR FRADKIN

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TIME FOR TRIAL TO ALLOW DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO BE HEARD

8/6/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TIME FOR TRIAL TO ALLOW DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO BE HEARD

Reply - Reply Target's Reply In Support of the Demurrer to the FAC

1/9/2019: Reply - Reply Target's Reply In Support of the Demurrer to the FAC

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for leave to File a First Amended Complaint;)

11/9/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for leave to File a First Amended Complaint;)

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Perso

12/24/2018: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Perso

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling - First Amended Complaint

11/14/2018: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling - First Amended Complaint

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling - First Amended Complaint

11/14/2018: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling - First Amended Complaint

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

1/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

3/19/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6/29/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

66 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs (- Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs (per Granting of Defendant's MSJ on 01/09/2020)) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs (- Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs (per Granting of Defendant's MSJ on 01/09/2020)) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: COVID-19;) of 04/14/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: COVID-19;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2020
  • DocketPlaintiff's Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs Ppursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1700,; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Target Corporation (Defendant); Queenie Leung (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT); Filed by Target Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
98 More Docket Entries
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC679463    Hearing Date: February 18, 2020    Dept: 29

Thomas v. Target, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Christine Thomas’s Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. Plaintiff has not established that the Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Target, Inc. was based on an error in law. Code Civ. Proc. § 657.

On January 9, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the undisputed evidence established that Target had no duty to prevent the patron who collided with Plaintiff from using a motorized shopping cart. Plaintiff Christine Thomas has filed a motion for a new trial, contending that the Court’s ruling was based on an error of law.

Plaintiff bases her claim of legal error solely on Reynolds v. Target Corporation (D. Mass. Case No. 13-cv-10648-LTS Nov. 7, 2014) 2014 WL 5816949, an unpublished decision from the District of Massachusetts. In that case, the plaintiff was shopping in a Target store when she was hit by a legally blind patron operating a motorized shopping cart. The Court denied Defendant Target Corporation’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to duty and breach.

Plaintiff’s position that the Reynolds decision establishes that the Court committed legal error is without merit. The Reynolds decision is not binding on the Court, is not based on California law, and is based on a factual record that is distinguishable from the one at issue here. The Court here granted summary judgment based on its analysis of the factors set forth in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108, factors that were not considered by the Reynolds court. Plaintiff has not established that the Court’s analysis of those factors was erroneous as a matter of law.

The motion for a new trial is denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC679463    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 2

BC679463 Thomas v. Target, Inc., et al.

On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment set for 12/5/19 is continued to 12/12/19 at 1:30 p.m. in Department SS-2. The due dates for the opposition and reply are based on the original hearing date.