BRODY CURTIS, Plaintiff(s), vs. LEEDS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL., Defendant(s).
Case No.: BC664631
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION FROM UNLIMITED TO LIMITED JURISDICTION COURT
Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
January 3, 2019
1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Brody Curtis filed this action against Defendants, Leeds Property Management, Inc., 3042 Livonia Ave., LLC, and Benjamin Leeds for premises liability.
2. Parties’ Positions
Defendants move to transfer this action from unlimited to limited jurisdiction court, contending Plaintiff will not recover damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit in this case. Defendants provide evidence Plaintiff’s only submitted medical bills total $1465.32, Plaintiff is seeking lost income in the amount of $1000, and Plaintiff has not received any additional medical treatment in the past two and a half years.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that (a) he has ongoing pain and suffering from the incident; and (b) she h
Hearing Date
January 03, 2019
Type
Premises Liability (e.g.slip & fall) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
BRODY CURTIS, Plaintiff(s), vs. LEEDS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL., Defendant(s).
Case No.: BC664631
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION FROM UNLIMITED TO LIMITED JURISDICTION COURT
Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
January 3, 2019
1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Brody Curtis filed this action against Defendants, Leeds Property Management, Inc., 3042 Livonia Ave., LLC, and Benjamin Leeds for premises liability.
2. Parties’ Positions
Defendants move to transfer this action from unlimited to limited jurisdiction court, contending Plaintiff will not recover damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit in this case. Defendants provide evidence Plaintiff’s only submitted medical bills total $1465.32, Plaintiff is seeking lost income in the amount of $1000, and Plaintiff has not received any additional medical treatment in the past two and a half years.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that (a) he has ongoing pain and suffering from the incident; and (b) she h