Ronge

Ronge v. Target Corporation

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaOctober 8, 20242:24-cv-06891California3,023 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff was shopping as an invited guest at a Target retail store located at 51 Tierra Rejada Road, Simi Valley, California, when he slipped on a puddle of water left unattended on the floor of aisle B39 and obtained bodily injuries (“Incident”). (Mot. 4:3-6.) Plaintiff’s prior counsel initiated the civil action by filing the Complaint in the Superior Court of California, naming Defendant Target and Does 1 through 30. (Mot. 4:6-8.) Target filed a Notice of Removal of Action based on complete diversity between the parties (California and Minnesota, respectively), and the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). (Dkt. No. 1.) The amount in controversy is not disputed.

On August 13, 2024, prior to removal, Plaintiff filed its Substitution of Attorney, designating Block LLP as its new counsel. (Mot. 5:1-4.) Around September 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s new counsel discovered a previously fictitiously named Doe in the individual Jakob Usher, who is believed to be the Team Lead of the Target where the Incident took place, evidenced by a newly discovered Incident Report. (Mot. 11-14.) Plaintiff is “informed and believes that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.