Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV20240, Date: 2024-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20240    Hearing Date: June 10, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff Chiquita Randle (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Witeby Enterprises, 1661, Inc., and Does 1 to 50 for negligence and premises liability surrounding a trip and fall in a parking lot. Plaintiff designated the case as unlimited. The complaint prays for special and general damages and loss of earnings/earning capacity. (Complaint, 7.)

On May 9, 2024, Defendant Witeby Enterprises (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion to reclassify this case as one of limited jurisdiction. On May 13, 2024, co-defendant 1661, Inc. filed a joinder to the motion. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 states:

“(a) The plaintiff, cross-complainant, or petitioner may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. 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, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time. A motion for reclassification does not extend the moving party's time to amend or answer or otherwise respond. 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.

(b) If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party to amend that party's initial pleading or to respond to a complaint, cross-complaint, or other initial pleading, the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The case is incorrectly classified.

(2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.”

For a limited civil case, “[t]he amount in controversy does not exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000). 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 85(a).)[1]

In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, the California Supreme Court held “a matter may be transferred when: (1) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (2) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will necessarily result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount and the court affords the parties an opportunity to contest the transfer.” (Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at 262.) A matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at 262.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)   

The test is whether lack of jurisdiction is clear or virtually unattainable. (Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at 269.) This standard involves an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim, and requires a “high level of certainty that [the] damage award will not exceed $25,000.” (Id.) The trial 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 of the demand. (Id. at 270.)

In deciding whether a matter should be transferred, a trial court must look beyond the pleadings but not so far as to trespass into the province of the trier of fact. 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 fact. (Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues this case should be reclassified as limited because all of Plaintiff’s medical expenses have been paid by workers’ compensation and Defendant purchased Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation lien of approximately $8,500 on June 29, 2021. (Lorasbi Decl. ¶ 6.) As a result, Defendant appears to argue that since Plaintiff is not responsible for the workers’ compensation lien and all expenses have been paid for, she cannot reach the $35,000 limit.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant fails to address Plaintiff’s claims of $12,410.90 in past medical expenses, $16,800 in lost earnings, the need for additional treatment for the remainder of her life, accommodations for her job, and general damages for pain and suffering. (Opp., 4.)

Based on the information provided, Defendant fails to show that to a legal certainty, Plaintiff cannot recover at least $35,000. “[A] personal injury plaintiff may recover the lesser of (a) the amount paid or incurred for medical services, and (b) the reasonable value of the services.” (Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 555–556.) Therefore, Defendant fails to show that Plaintiff cannot recover for the expenses paid by workers’ compensation, or that the lien it purchased represents all of her expenses. Defendant presents no evidence that Plaintiff is fully recovered, especially considering she is alleging future expenses and general damages. Defendant does not adequately address this in its reply.

Additionally, this motion was brought after the time to file Defendant’s initial pleading. Defendant has not shown good cause for not seeking reclassification sooner.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to reclassify is DENIED.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.