Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 22STCV24794, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

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.

On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff Sayed R. Jaiyedi (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Victor Uribe, Miller Freight and Logistics, Inc., and Does 1 to 20 for negligence stemming from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff designated this an unlimited civil case in the complaint.

Defendants Victor Uribe and Miller Freight and Logistics, Inc. (“Defendants”) now move to reclassify this action as a limited civil case under Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040. Plaintiff opposes and Defendants reply.[1]

“(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:

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

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.)

Defendant argues this case involves an alleged side scrape of two vehicles passing each other that occurred on August 11, 2020. Plaintiff claims $5,243 in medical special damages and received some chiropractic treatment after the incident but was discharged in December 2020. Plaintiff was deposed on July 19, 2023 and testified he is not seeking future medical treatment. (Purcell Decl., Exh. B.)

Plaintiff has not produced an estimate for damages to his vehicle and is not making a loss of income or earning capacity claim. To date, Defendants contend Plaintiff has claimed $13,743 in damages. (Purcell Decl. ¶ 8.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants fail to consider general damages for pain and suffering and that it is possible a trier of fact may award $11,258. (Opp., 5.)

In reply, Defendants contend the general damages amount is five times the medical specials and likely excessive.

However, seeing that general damages are peculiarly the function of the trier of fact, and property damages have not been disclosed, the Court cannot conclude to a high level of certainty that this case will result in damages below $25,000. Additionally, the Court notes that the discovery Defendants rely upon—Plaintiff’s form interrogatories and Plaintiff’s deposition—are dated March 6, 2023 and July 19, 2023 respectively. (Purcell Decl., Exh. A, B.) Therefore, Defendants also fail to show good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.

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

[1] In reply, Defendants argue they did not receive actual notice of Plaintiff’s opposition. Therefore, the Court excuses the late-filed reply and considers its arguments.

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	May 24, 2024
CASE NUMBER:	22STCV24794
MOTIONS:	Motion to Reclassify
MOVING PARTY:	Defendants Victor Uribe and Miller Freight and Logistics, Inc.
OPPOSING PARTY:	Plaintiff Sayed R. Jaiyedi