This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/14/2020 at 17:13:58 (UTC).

IVALYNN THOMPSON VS REGAL NAIL SALON

Case Summary

On 05/01/2018 IVALYNN THOMPSON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against REGAL NAIL SALON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RANDOLPH A. ROGERS and WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7931

  • Filing Date:

    05/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RANDOLPH A. ROGERS

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

THOMPSON IVY

THOMPSON EVA LYNN

THOMPSON IVALYNN

THOMPSON IVALYNN AKA IVY THOMPSON

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

REGAL NAIL SALON

SALON REGAL NAIL

REGAL NAILS FRANCHISE 5394

DINH THANH DBA REGAL NAILS

DINH THANH

REGAL NAILS FRANCHISE 5394 LLC

Cross Defendant

ROES 1 THROUGH 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

EKPENISI MACAULEY

AIMUFUA EDWIN IKPONMWOSA

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

MITTSKUS DANIELLE

BOUCHE' JACQUELINE

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING ...)

9/28/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING ...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING ...) OF 09/28/2020

9/28/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING ...) OF 09/28/2020

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

8/28/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

9/8/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 09/08/2020

9/8/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 09/08/2020

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE) OF 07/27/2020

7/27/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE) OF 07/27/2020

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

6/4/2020: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: ADVANCEMENT)

4/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: ADVANCEMENT)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: ADVANCEMENT) OF 04/23/2020

4/23/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: ADVANCEMENT) OF 04/23/2020

Substitution of Attorney

2/28/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Notice - NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY WITHIN FIRM

1/21/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY WITHIN FIRM

[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

12/19/2019: [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

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (1ST)

6/24/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (1ST)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

6/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

5/2/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/1/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Substitution of Attorney

3/19/2019: Substitution of Attorney

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/12/2021
  • Hearing03/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department A15 at 42011 4th Street West, Lancaster, CA 93534; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • Hearing03/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department A15 at 42011 4th Street West, Lancaster, CA 93534; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department A15, Wendy Chang, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department A15, Wendy Chang, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Settlement Conference) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Order to Show Cause Re: Settlement Conference; Trial Setting ...) of 09/28/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Settlement Conference; Trial Setting ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
34 More Docket Entries
  • 06/24/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Cross Complaint); Filed by Thanh Dinh dba Regal Nails, Salon & Spa Erroneously Sued As Thanh Dinh (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Ivalynn Thompson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketAmended Complaint (First); Filed by Ivalynn Thompson (Plaintiff); Ivalynn Thompson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Ivalynn Thompson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • DocketCert Mailing-Ntc Entry Order/Doc; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ivalynn Thompson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Ivalynn Thompson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: MC027931    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: A15

Thompson v. Regal Nail Salon

1. Tentative Ruling

Defendant Thanh Dinh, d/b/a Regal Nails, Salon, & Spa’s motion to reclassify action from unlimited to limited jurisdiction is DENIED. Plaintiff Ivalynn Thompson to give notice.

2. Background

This personal injury action arises from an incident occurring on November 07, 2017, whereby Plaintiff Ivalynn Thompson, a patron at the nail salon owned by Defendant Thanh Dinh, d/b/a Regal Nails, Salon, & Spa, allegedly suffered an injury caused by one of Defendant’s employees, consisting of a deep cut with an unsanitized utensil into the skin surrounding her big toe, and then had her foot placed into unsanitary footbath water. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered an onychomycosis nail fungal infection.

Plaintiff filed her personal injury Complaint in this action on May 01, 2018. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 22, 2019, now alleging three causes of action for (1) General Negligence; (2) Products Liability; and (3) Premises Liability.

Defendant filed her Answer to the Complaint on June 24, 2019. On June 26, 2019, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against Roe Cross-Defendants for implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

On November 01, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion to reclassify the action from unlimited to limited jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed opposition on November 15, 2019. Defendant filed a reply on November 22, 2019.

3. Analysis

Counsel for the Parties have failed to provide the Court with courtesy copies of the instant motion. The Court reminds counsel of the General Order of November 05, 2018, as amended on May 03, 2019, mandating attorneys to provide a paper courtesy copy of their motions. Courtesy copies of further filings shall be provided directly to Dept. A-15.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, a court may reclassify a case from unlimited to limited civil when the case has been misclassified - that is, if the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a); see Stern v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 230.)

The designation of a case as a limited action has significant implications. If a case is tried as a limited civil case, the court has no authority to award a judgment in excess of $25,000. (See Ash v. Hertz Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1110; Williams v. Sup. Ct. (RD Instruments) (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 378, 383.) In contrast, a court in an unlimited civil action may enter a judgment that could have been entered in a limited civil court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (e).) Reclassification from “unlimited” to “limited” is warranted only if the matter will necessarily result in a verdict below $25,000; it may be not be reclassified as a “limited” case unless it appears to a “legal certainty” that the plaintiff cannot recover more than $25,000. (Ytuarte v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276-277.) Thus, if it appears that a verdict in excess of $25,000 could possibly result, the court must not reclassify the case as limited. The court may order a reclassification where it appears to a legal certainty the plaintiff's damages would necessarily be $25,000 or less. (Ibid.)

The governing standard for reclassifying a case from unlimited to limited jurisdiction is found in Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257. Pursuant to Walker, a trial court must conclude that the amount in controversy will “necessarily” fall short of the jurisdictional minimum before transferring a case from unlimited to limited jurisdiction. (Id. at p. 270.) “The [trial] court may believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, but this is not enough to defeat jurisdiction, unless it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recover the amount which he has demanded.” (Ibid.)

Appellate courts have underscored the high threshold set by Walker: “[The plaintiff] may well not prevail on the factual disputes regarding the extent of his injuries…But a [Walker] hearing is not to be perceived as a mini-trial or an opportunity for a trial judge to put forth a well-educated guess of a verdict. The unlikeliness of a judgment in excess of $25,000 is not the test. The trial court reviews the record to determine whether the result is obtainable. Simply stated, the trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability.” (Maldonado v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 397, 402.)

Defendant points to Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, attached in the declaration of Danielle of Mittskus as Exhibit “E”, wherein her claimed injuries are bilateral toe infection, fungal infection, bilateral feet spasms, and swelling in both legs, and that she has sustained medical damages totaling $4,134.00.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s verified discovery responses so far, combined with the lack of information provided regarding future medical treatment or the claimed lost earnings, make it clear that her medical damages will not exceed the $25,000.00 threshold required for unlimited civil actions.

In opposition, Plaintiff submits that at the time of the underlying incident, she was employed as a caregiver with In-Home Caregiver working 24-hour shifts, and she has sustained significant wage loss due to this incident, with her estimated loss of wages to exceed $22,000.00. Plaintiff has submitted verification in Exhibit “1” showing that she can no longer perform her “customary work duties.”

Plaintiff’s opposition, and her form interrogatory responses, indicate that she is still in treatment. Thus, there is potential for increased damages as discovery proceeds and more information is provided regarding future medical treatment. Moreover, Plaintiff is alleging $22,000.00 in lost wages, and is also requesting damages in her complaint for pain and suffering, which are by their nature indefinite, and could possibly increase Plaintiff’s damages beyond the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. While Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories series 8 could use updating with the specific information provided in the opposition, (and discovery is still open for a little bit longer), Plaintiff did, in fact, state in her September 2019 responses upon which this motion is based that she was seeking lost wages, and, as she has not returned to work, appear to continue to accrue. Whether or not Plaintiff will ultimately be entitled to those lost wages as an element of damages is a future issue for the trier of fact. Finally, these numbers do not take into account any pain and suffering Plaintiff might be entitled to.

Under Walker’s “possibility” standard, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s damages awarded could exceed the $25,000 jurisdictional threshold.

4. Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.