Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 22STCV16576, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV16576, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16576 Hearing Date: November 6, 2023 Dept: 55

The motion is denied.Plaintiff Bret Martin Zajac’s (“Zajac”) Complaint alleges emotional distress damages from FEHA violations and unsafe working conditions. Defendant Rolling Green Nursery, Inc. (“Rolling Green”) contends that Zajac has no supporting evidence of his emotional distress damages and he will not be able to obtain damages of at least $25,000. Rolling Green thus contends this case should be reclassified as limited. Zajac opposes the motion.

In considering a motion to reclassify a case as limited pursuant to CCP §403.040, “the superior court must deny the motion to reclassify the case as limited (and thus keep the matter in the unlimited civil court) unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000.” Ytuarte v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 266, 277. Accord Stern v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 223, 233. A motion to reclassify does not involve an evaluation of the merits of the claims. Stern, 105 Cal. App. 4th at 233. Without sufficient evidence as to the value of the case, where the allegations of the complaint preclude a finding that the verdict will “necessarily” fall short of the $25,001 jurisdictional requirement, a reclassification order may be an abuse of discretion. Id. Courts have required an adequate record, but not necessarily competent evidence, in support of transfers to a limited jurisdiction court. See Stern v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 233 (evidence can include the complaint, arbitration awards and a settlement recommendation). “A belief that a sufficient verdict is ‘highly unlikely’ is not enough to justify a transfer....” Chahal v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 399, 402. Accord Singer v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1321.

“Compensatory damages, including emotional distress damages, are recoverable in civil actions for FEHA violations.” Cal. Prac. Guide Employment Litigation § 17:336 (2023). No fixed or absolute standard exists for computing the dollar value of emotional distress damages, and juries have vast discretion in determining damages amounts. Hope v. California Youth Auth. (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 577, 595 (jury awarded $1 million in noneconomic damages on employee’s claims of harassment and retaliation). “[T]here is no fixed or absolute standard by which to compute the monetary value of emotional distress….” Merlo v. Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co. (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 5, 17. Contrary to Rolling Green’s argument, Zajac’s purported present lack of supportive evidence of his emotional distress is not the applicable test to determine reclassification. The Complaint adequately alleges emotional distress damages that potentially could exceed $25,000. Moreover, Zajac’s discovery responses provide some detail about the alleged injuries he suffered because of Rolling Green’s conduct. The Court cannot and does not conclude that there is a legal certainty Zajac’s damages will fall below $25,000, and thus denies the motion. Because the Court denies the motion on the merits, the Court need not address whether Rolling Green demonstrated good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. See CCP §403.040(b).

In his opposition, Zajac seeks sanctions against Rolling Green pursuant to CCP §128.5 for bringing this motion. “Any sanctions imposed pursuant to this section shall be imposed consistently with the standards, conditions, and procedures set forth in subdivisions (c), (d), and (h) of Section 128.7.” CCP §128.5(f). In order to award sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7, in shortening time, courts must allow a sufficient safe harbor period for the opportunity to withdraw filed documents. Goodstone v. Southwest Airlines Co. (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 406, 424; CCP §128.7(c)(1). There is no evidence that Rolling Green followed any of the procedural requirements for a sanctions motion. And courts may only consider issues or grounds specified in the notice of motion or supporting documents incorporated by reference in the notice. Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 1119, 1125; Geary St., L.P. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1186, 1199-1200; People v. Am. Sur. Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 719, 726; Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal. App. 3d 796, 808; Taliaferro v. Riddle (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 567, 570; Traders' Credit Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1931) 111 Cal.App. 663, 665. The Court denies Rolling Green’s request.