This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/11/2021 at 23:45:12 (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

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

THOMAS CHRISTINE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 - 25

LEUNG QUEENIE

TARGET INC.

TARGET CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff 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

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;)

4/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;) OF 04/14/2020

4/14/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;) OF 04/14/2020

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)

Notice of Ruling

2/19/2020: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

2/25/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

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...)

Judgment - JUDGMENT PROPOSED JUDGMENT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2/21/2020: Judgment - JUDGMENT PROPOSED JUDGMENT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JEFFREY TSAO

2/7/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JEFFREY TSAO

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATIONS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

2/7/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATIONS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

2/13/2020: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TARGET'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARRING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

1/29/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TARGET'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARRING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

1/30/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FILED BY DEFENDANT TARGET COR...)

1/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FILED BY DEFENDANT TARGET COR...)

Request for Judicial Notice

1/23/2020: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion re: - MOTION RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF IGOR FRADKIN

1/23/2020: Motion re: - MOTION RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF IGOR FRADKIN

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 More [-] Read Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

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

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

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read 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 More [-] Read Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Target Corporation (Defendant); Queenie Leung (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT); Filed by Target Corporation (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
98 More Docket Entries
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Christine Thomas (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE, ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9463    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: ****9463    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 2

****9463 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.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HEARD RONALD ROY