Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV23067, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV23067 Hearing Date: December 3, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Defendants’ Motion
to Reclassify (Walker Motion)
Defendants’ Motion
to Reclassify is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ofunne Obiamiwe,
a substitute teacher, filed this action against Inglewood
Unified School District, Sarah Appleton,
the principal of Bennett-Kew Elementary School, and doe defendants 1 to 50 (“Defendants”), alleging that Defendants retaliated
against her for objecting to feeding students lasagna covered by burnt plastic.
The causes of action are: (1) Retaliation in violation of
California Labor Code section 1102.5; (2) Negligence; and (3) Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Defendants filed a Motion to Reclassify. Plaintiff filed an Opposition.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendants request the Court
take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint; (2)
Sample Substitute Teacher Job posting at Inglewood Unified School District; and
(3) Transparent California report on “Ofunne Obiamiwe.”
Defendants’ request for
judicial notice is granted as to Plaintiff’s Complaint and denied as to the
other two documents.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, subdivision (a)
provides in part: “The defendant or cross-defendant may file a motion for
reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the
initial pleading.... The court shall grant the motion and enter an order for
reclassification, regardless of any fault or lack of fault, if the case has
been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification.” Limited civil
cases include cases “in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value
of the property in controversy amounts to thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000)
or less.” Code Civ. Proc., § 86, subd. (a)(1).) Attorney’s fees, which may be
recoverable by statute or contract, are not included in the amount in
controversy. Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a) (“As used in this section, ‘amount
in controversy’ means the amount of the demand, or the recovery sought, or the
value of the property, or the amount of the lien, that is in controversy in the
action, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs.”).
“[A] matter may be reclassified as a limited civil action ‘when
(i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint,
petition, or related documents, or (ii) during the course of pretrial
litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will “necessarily” result in a
verdict below the superior court’s jurisdictional amount ….’” Ytuarte v.
Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276-277 (Ytuarte) (quoting
Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262 [Walker]). “Even
more appropriately, ‘… the test [is] … whether “lack of jurisdiction is clear”…’
[or] virtually unattainable….”’” Id. at p. 277 (quoting Walker, supra,
53 Cal.3d at p. 269). “This standard involves an evaluation of the amount
fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim….” Ibid.
“The 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.” Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 27 (citation omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Accordingly under Walker 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 $[3]5,000.
This standard of ‘legal certainty’ is not met when it appears a verdict within
the unlimited court’s jurisdiction is ‘possible.’” Ytuarte, supra, 129
Cal.App.4th at p. 277.
In deciding whether a matter should be transferred, a trial
court may look beyond the pleadings but not so far as to trespass into the
province of the trier of fact. See Singer v. Superior Court
(1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320 (quoting Walker, supra, 53 Cal. 3d, at
p. 269) (“‘Pain and suffering are not subject to precise measurement by any
scale, and their translation into money damages is peculiarly the function of
the trier of the facts.’”)
ANALYSIS
Defendants move to have the case reclassified as limited, arguing
that the amount in controversy does not exceed $35,000.
Prayer for Relief
As an initial matter, Defendant argues that Plaintiff erred
in not including the amount of damages in her prayer for relief, as required by
Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10, subdivision (a). This argument is
without merit. Plaintiff properly pleaded that the amount of controversy
exceeds $35,000. Compl. at ¶ 15. In Furia v. Helm (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th
945, 957, the court held, “the specific dollar amount is necessary only when a
default judgment is to be entered. The purpose of such a requirement is to
ensure that the defendant is sufficiently aware of the consequences of not
answering the complaint. However, ‘in any other case, the court may grant the
plaintiff any relief consistent with the case made by the complaint and
embraced within the issue.’” (Quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a))
(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff’s failure
to include the amount of damages sought in her prayer for relief does not
preclude her from establishing the amount of controversy exceeds $35,000.
Economic Damages
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s alleged economic damages
total, at most, $681, reflecting three days of lost wages substitute teaching
at Bennett-Kew Elementary School. Mot. at p. 7:17-18.
Plaintiff does not dispute this figure but argues that Defendants ignore
potential future lost wages. Opp. at p.7:7-8. For reasons discussed below, the
Court need not decide whether $681 represents Plaintiff's maximum economic
recovery.
Non-Economic Damages
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendants’ conduct,
she has suffered non-economic damages, including “extraordinary psychological
and emotional distress, embarrassment, reputational harm, loss of sleep,
humiliation, depression, anxiety, mental and physical injury, pain including
exacerbated fibromyalgia, significant psychological stress, and anguish in an
amount to be proven at trial.” Compl. at ¶ 50.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain
substantial emotional distress damages based on the alleged facts. They cite Martinez
v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal. App. 5th 193, 254 (Martinez) for
the proposition that “[d]etermining whether a claim is plausible is a
context-specific task requiring the court to draw on its judicial experience
and common sense.” However, Martinez concerned a motion to dismiss, not
a motion to reclassify. Martinez, supra 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 254.
The question before the Court on this motion is not whether the damages sought
are plausible but possible. See Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p.
277.
Similarly, Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff fails to
support her claims for non-economic damages misstates the standard. By their
very nature, non-economic damages are difficult to quantify in monetary terms.
For the Court to weigh the evidence to determine the likely damages would
improperly invade the providence of the jury as the trier of fact. See Singer,
supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 1320. The Court cannot place a monetary value
on these non-economic damages and thus cannot find with legal certainty that
Plaintiff cannot recover more than $35,000. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to
reclassify is denied.
Punitive damages and Penalties
Because the non-economic damages alone may be sufficient to
meet the amount in controversy threshold, the Court need not address
Defendants’ arguments regarding punitive damages or civil penalties.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion to Reclassify is denied.