Preview
Brian T. Flahavan, [SBN 215222]
FLAHA VAN LA W OFFICES
400 College Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Email: btfQflahavanlaw.corn
Telephone: (707) 525-2917
Facsimile: (707) 525-2918
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ROCIO ALVAREZ and ALONSO ALVAREZ
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SONOMA
12 ROCIO ALVAREZ and ALONSO Case No. 23CV01398
ALVAREZ, HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER HONIGSBERG
13
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
14 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
RECLASSIFY ACTION
15
Hearing Date: April 10, 2024
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Dept.: 18
17 WALMART, INC., et al.,
18 Defendants.
19
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 The case involves a premises liability incident which occurred on July 22, 2023, at the
22 Walmart Store in Windsor, California. Plaintiff and her son were injured as a result of
slipping in
23 aisle at Walmart. Plaintiff s counsel sent a letter of representation to the Walmart Store on
July 25,
24 2023. Walmart provided no response, so suit was filed in this matter on December 13, 2023.
25 Plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, right shoulder, right arm, lett knee, and leA foot.
26 Plaintiffhas received extensive medical care which includes, Emergency Room visits, multiple
27 follow-up visits with her primary care doctor, physical therapy sessions, and an MRI of her left knee.
28 She has recently been prescribed an MRI for her shoulder, as well as referral to an orthopaedic
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECLASSIFY
1 surgeon. Plaintiff Rocio Alvarez'edical bills exceed $ 20,000. However, the medical payments
by
2 Medi-Cal are in the range of $ 4,000 and continuing. As stated
above, Plaintiff continues to treat and
3 may undergo surgery. If that occurs, Plaintiff Rocio Alvarez will have medical
bills in excess of
4 $ 75,000 and payments in excess of $ 20,000. Plaintiff Rocio Alvarez
has also incurred significant
5 general damages and continues to suffer from physical pain on a daily basis as
a result of injuries
6 sustained in this accident. Her pain and physical limitations have
interfered with her ability to return
7 to the workforce and care for her child. In addition, Plaintiff Alonso
Alvarez was injured in this
8 incident and has incurred known medical specials are
$ 3,073. Plaintiff Alonso Alvarez was four
9 months old at the time of the subject incident at Walmart.
10 II. DEFENDANT WALMART CANNOT ESTABLISH GOOD CAUSE FOR AN ORDER
11 TO RECLASSIFY THE ACTION TO A COURT TO LIMITED JURISDICTION.
12 The controlling test for whether a case is "incorrectly classified" is whether 'lack of
13 jurisdiction is clear'... '[orj virtually unattainable...'
(Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53
14 Cal.3d 257 at 269. This standard involves an evaluation of the amount
fairly in controversy, not an
15 adjudication of the merits of the claim. An according to Walker, although the trial court "may
16 believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, [this] is not
enough to
17 defeat jurisdiction, unless it aooears to a leeal certainlv" that the damage award will not exceed
18 $ 25,000. (Id. at 270.) Therefore, regarding valuation of the amount of a future judgment, Walker
19 holds that a matter can be transferred (or reclassified) only when (1) before trial, the complaint,
20 petition, or related documents make the absence of jurisdiction apparent, or (2) during pretrial
21 litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will "necessarily" result in a verdict below the
22 jurisdictional amount lId. at 262.)
23 Defendant has the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence to reclassify the
24 action. Walker v. Superior Court Residentia! Construction Enterprises, (1991) 53 Cal.3d. They
25 simply cannot meet this burden. To the contrary, Plaintiff Rocio Alvarez'njuries and continuing
26 medical care suggest a claim value well in excess of $ 25,000. At this stage of the case, there is no
27 good cause to reclassify this matter. The Discovery has not been completed, and no depositions have
28 been taken. Total special damages and general damages are unknown, but are likely to exceed
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECLASSIFY
$ 75,000.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claims do not exceed the $ 25,000 jurisdictional
limit.
However, Plaintiffs made clear in their discovery responses that total known
special damages were
unknown and general damages were unknown, due to continuing need for
medical care, as well as
continued pain and suffering. Defendant is purely seeking to limit its
exposure and take the authority
to make this decision out of the control of the jury.
The court is not required to reclassify an action because the judgement to be
rendered, as
determined at the trial or hearing, is one that might have been rendered in a limited
civil case. Code
Civ.Proc.)403.040(e). Given the nature of Plaintiffs'njuries, a jury may very well award them
over
10 $ 25,000 in general damages just for pain and suffering.
III. DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR NOT FILING MOTION
12 FOR RECLASSIFICATION EARLIER THAN OUTLINED BY STATUTE.
13 Code of Civil Procedure $ 403.040(a) states that "The defendant or cross-complainant
may
14 file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial
15 pleading."
16 Code of Civil Procedure Ij403.040(b) states that if a party files a motion for reclassification
17 after the time for that party to amend its initial pleading or to respond to a complaint, the court shall
18 grant the motion only if two conditions are satisfied: (I) the case was incorrectly classified and
(2)
19 the moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.
20 Defendant has not satisfied either condition. Counsel for Plaintiffs did not by error file suit
21 in unlimited jurisdiction. Counsel filed suit in unlimited court because of Plaintiffs'pecial and
22 general damages. Plaintiffs'amages may very well exceed the jurisdictional limits of the limited
23 jurisdiction court. The value of Plaintiffs'laims should be determined by the jury and not capped
24 by Defendant's motion.
25 This case has been in litigation for approximately three months. Defendant's motion does
26 not meet the criteria of Code of Civil Procedure $ 403.040(b), and therefore should be denied.
27
28
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECLASSIFY
I IV. CONCLUSION.
Defendant failed to show good cause for failing to a motion to reclassify the action earlier,
as
outlined by statute. The value of Plaintiffs'laims may well exceed $ 25,000. The value
of
Plaintiffs'laim should be determined by a jury, not by Defendant's motion.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Reclassify should be denied.
DATED: March P r2024 FLAHAVAN LAW OFFICES
By
10 BRIAN T. FLAHAVAN
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ROCIO ALUAREZ and ALONS0 ALVAREZ
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECLASSIFY
Preview
Brian T. Flahavan, [SBN 215222] FLAHA VAN LA W OFFICES 400 College Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Email: btfQflahavanlaw.corn Telephone: (707) 525-2917 Facsimile: (707) 525-2918 Attorney for Plaintiffs ROCIO ALVAREZ and ALONSO ALVAREZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SONOMA 12 ROCIO ALVAREZ and ALONSO Case No. 23CV01398 ALVAREZ, HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER HONIGSBERG 13 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO 14 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECLASSIFY ACTION 15 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Time: 3:00 p.m. Dept.: 18 17 WALMART, INC., et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 The case involves a premises liability incident which occurred on July 22, 2023, at the 22 Walmart Store in Windsor, California. Plaintiff and her son were injured as a result of slipping in 23 aisle at Walmart. Plaintiff s counsel sent a letter of representation to the Walmart Store on July 25, 24 2023. Walmart provided no response, so suit was filed in this matter on December 13, 2023. 25 Plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, right shoulder, right arm, lett knee, and leA foot. 26 Plaintiffhas received extensive medical care which includes, Emergency Room visits, multiple 27 follow-up visits with her primary care doctor, physical therapy sessions, and an MRI of her left knee. 28 She has recently been prescribed an MRI for her shoulder, as well as referral to an orthopaedic OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECLASSIFY 1 surgeon. Plaintiff Rocio Alvarez'edical bills exceed $ 20,000. However, the medical payments by 2 Medi-Cal are in the range of $ 4,000 and continuing. As stated above, Plaintiff continues to treat and 3 may undergo surgery. If that occurs, Plaintiff Rocio Alvarez will have medical bills in excess of 4 $ 75,000 and payments in excess of $ 20,000. Plaintiff Rocio Alvarez has also incurred significant 5 general damages and continues to suffer from physical pain on a daily basis as a result of injuries 6 sustained in this accident. Her pain and physical limitations have interfered with her ability to return 7 to the workforce and care for her child. In addition, Plaintiff Alonso Alvarez was injured in this 8 incident and has incurred known medical specials are $ 3,073. Plaintiff Alonso Alvarez was four 9 months old at the time of the subject incident at Walmart. 10 II. DEFENDANT WALMART CANNOT ESTABLISH GOOD CAUSE FOR AN ORDER 11 TO RECLASSIFY THE ACTION TO A COURT TO LIMITED JURISDICTION. 12 The controlling test for whether a case is "incorrectly classified" is whether 'lack of 13 jurisdiction is clear'... '[orj virtually unattainable...' (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 14 Cal.3d 257 at 269. This standard involves an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an 15 adjudication of the merits of the claim. An according to Walker, although the trial court "may 16 believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, [this] is not enough to 17 defeat jurisdiction, unless it aooears to a leeal certainlv" that the damage award will not exceed 18 $ 25,000. (Id. at 270.) Therefore, regarding valuation of the amount of a future judgment, Walker 19 holds that a matter can be transferred (or reclassified) only when (1) before trial, the complaint, 20 petition, or related documents make the absence of jurisdiction apparent, or (2) during pretrial 21 litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will "necessarily" result in a verdict below the 22 jurisdictional amount lId. at 262.) 23 Defendant has the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence to reclassify the 24 action. Walker v. Superior Court Residentia! Construction Enterprises, (1991) 53 Cal.3d. They 25 simply cannot meet this burden. To the contrary, Plaintiff Rocio Alvarez'njuries and continuing 26 medical care suggest a claim value well in excess of $ 25,000. At this stage of the case, there is no 27 good cause to reclassify this matter. The Discovery has not been completed, and no depositions have 28 been taken. Total special damages and general damages are unknown, but are likely to exceed OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECLASSIFY $ 75,000. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claims do not exceed the $ 25,000 jurisdictional limit. However, Plaintiffs made clear in their discovery responses that total known special damages were unknown and general damages were unknown, due to continuing need for medical care, as well as continued pain and suffering. Defendant is purely seeking to limit its exposure and take the authority to make this decision out of the control of the jury. The court is not required to reclassify an action because the judgement to be rendered, as determined at the trial or hearing, is one that might have been rendered in a limited civil case. Code Civ.Proc.)403.040(e). Given the nature of Plaintiffs'njuries, a jury may very well award them over 10 $ 25,000 in general damages just for pain and suffering. III. DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR NOT FILING MOTION 12 FOR RECLASSIFICATION EARLIER THAN OUTLINED BY STATUTE. 13 Code of Civil Procedure $ 403.040(a) states that "The defendant or cross-complainant may 14 file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial 15 pleading." 16 Code of Civil Procedure Ij403.040(b) states that if a party files a motion for reclassification 17 after the time for that party to amend its initial pleading or to respond to a complaint, the court shall 18 grant the motion only if two conditions are satisfied: (I) the case was incorrectly classified and (2) 19 the moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. 20 Defendant has not satisfied either condition. Counsel for Plaintiffs did not by error file suit 21 in unlimited jurisdiction. Counsel filed suit in unlimited court because of Plaintiffs'pecial and 22 general damages. Plaintiffs'amages may very well exceed the jurisdictional limits of the limited 23 jurisdiction court. The value of Plaintiffs'laims should be determined by the jury and not capped 24 by Defendant's motion. 25 This case has been in litigation for approximately three months. Defendant's motion does 26 not meet the criteria of Code of Civil Procedure $ 403.040(b), and therefore should be denied. 27 28 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECLASSIFY I IV. CONCLUSION. Defendant failed to show good cause for failing to a motion to reclassify the action earlier, as outlined by statute. The value of Plaintiffs'laims may well exceed $ 25,000. The value of Plaintiffs'laim should be determined by a jury, not by Defendant's motion. Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Reclassify should be denied. DATED: March P r2024 FLAHAVAN LAW OFFICES By 10 BRIAN T. FLAHAVAN Attorney for Plaintiffs ROCIO ALUAREZ and ALONS0 ALVAREZ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECLASSIFY