Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV07972, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 22STCV07972    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiff Michelle Leonard sues Defendants Brian E. Claypool (Brian Claypool), The Claypool Law Firm (Claypool Law), and Does 1 to 20 pursuant to a May 3, 2023, First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging claims of (1) Legal Malpractice and (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

The claims arise from allegations that, in the course of their legal representation of Michelle Leonard in claims surrounding her injuries arising from the Route 91 Harvest Festival concert shooting in Las Vegas Nevada, Brian Claypool and Claypool Law (the Claypool Defendants), as well as Does 1 to 20, engaged in conduct amounting to legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.

B. Relevant Procedural History

On March 12, 2024, the Court partially granted a January 11, 2024, motion by the Claypool Defendants for, inter alia, issue and evidence sanctions against Plaintiff Michelle Leonard. The Court ordered:

“(1) Except as to evidence produced by Michelle Leonard by February 25, 2024, Michelle Leonard and her witnesses are PRECLUDED from testifying or introducing writings or documents that relate to any payments that Michelle Leonard received in or for the Underlying Action[.]

(2) It is established in this action that Michelle Leonard did not have any income for five years prior to the underlying incident, other than as shown in the evidence produced by Michelle Leonard as of February 25, 2024.

(3) It is established in this action that Michelle Leonard received an amount of money for the Underlying Action, but Michelle Leonard is barred from introducing any amount that she received, other than the evidence produced by Michelle Leonard as of February 25, 2024.

(4) It is established in this action that Michelle Leonard received an amount of money for the underlying incident, but Michelle Leonard is barred from introducing any amount that she received, other than the evidence produced by Michelle Leonard as of February 25, 2024.”

C. Motion Before the Court

On March 19, 2024, the Claypool Defendants filed a motion to reclassify this action from an unlimited jurisdiction civil action to a limited jurisdiction civil action.

The Claypool Defendants served this motion on Plaintiff Michelle Leonard’s counsel—Kevin Gerry and Frank Hartman of The Law Offices of Kevin Gerry—via email that same day.

No opposition, reply, or notice of non-opposition appears in the record.

The Claypool Defendants’ motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion to Reclassify: DENIED, without prejudice.

A. Request for Judicial Notice

Per the Claypool Defendants’ request, the Court takes judicial notice of the settlement in the underlying class action and its corresponding Claims Protocol and Allocation Methodology. (Mot., RJN, Exs. A, B; Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453, subd. (a)-(b).)

B. Legal Standard

To prevail on a motion to reclassify a case as limited, the movant must show that the case is incorrectly classified as an unlimited civil case—that is, the case meets all the conditions for classification as a limited civil case. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 85, subds. (a)-(c), 422.30, subd. (b), 580, subds. (b)(1)-(4).)

If the movant seeks a reclassification because the amount in controversy is below the statutory maximum for limited civil jurisdiction ($25,000 or less prior to January 1, 2024, $35,000 or less thereafter), the movant must show a legal certainty that the damages award will not exceed that maximum. (Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a); see Hiona v. Superior Court (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 866, 872 (Hiona); Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 277 (Ytuarte); see also Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270-271 (Walker) [courts should be cautious about changing case from unlimited to limited because it deprives plaintiff of chance to prove higher damages].)

C. Parties’ Arguments

In their motion, the Claypool Defendants argue that based on the limited universe of the documents produced by Michelle Leonard as of February 25, 2024, and based on the Court’s March 12, 2024, ruling limiting the evidence to that limited universe, Plaintiff’s maximum damages in this action can only be $16,446.97, which supports a limited jurisdiction civil action. The Claypool Defendants base that calculation on the settlement in the underlying class action case and the corresponding Claims Protocol and Allocation Methodology.

No opposition was filed, and a notice of non-opposition was filed by Defendants on April 3, 2024.

D. Analysis

The Court finds in favor of Michelle Leonard.

Put simply, the Claypool Defendants have failed to address all the avenues of potential damages alleged in the FAC’s two causes of action, for which reason the Claypool Defendants have failed to show with legal certainty that damages will not exceed $35,000.

The FAC alleges liability against the Claypool Defendants based on: (1) the Claypool Defendants’ failure to submit key medical records for Michelle Leonard’s injuries in relation the Route 91 shooting and class action case in Nevada; (2) the Claypool Defendants’ failure to file documentation with the federal government regarding Michelle Leonard’s total disability as a result of her injuries; (3) the Claypool Defendants providing erroneous tax information regarding Michelle Leonard’s personal injury claims; and (4) the Claypool Defendants’ omission of the aforementioned misconduct through failure and refusal to communicate with Michelle Leonard to keep her apprised of the significant developments in the class action case or respond to Michelle Leonard’s documents requests, including giving Michelle Leonard a copy of her retainer agreement upon execution. (FAC, ¶¶ 9-10(c).)

The moving papers only address point (1), i.e., damages arising from failure to submit medical records. (See Mot., pp. 4-6.) The moving papers do not address the other sources of damages, such as points (2) and (3), i.e., damages arising from the Claypool Defendants’ failure to file documentation with the federal government regarding Michelle Leonard’s total disability and giving Michelle Leonard erroneous tax information. The moving papers only mention disability once and taxes twice, and these three references were made in the context of damages arising from failure to submit medical records in the class action case, which is unrelated to total disability filings and erroneous tax filings with the federal government. (Mot., 3:19-21, 5:1-5.) Damages arising from the Claypool Defendants’ omission of the above conduct—point (4)—is also not addressed in the moving papers; it may not give rise to any damages over and above point 1, but the issue has not been addressed.

And while the Claypool Defendants challenged the FAC’s allegations in a demurrer and motion to strike filed on February 7, 2023, the Claypool Defendants took those motions off calendar on May 8, 2023, for which reason the entirety of the FAC must be addressed when analyzing damages with legal certainty for reclassification purposes.

Because the Claypool Defendants’ motion does not address all possible sources of damages for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, the amount in controversy has not been shown with legal certainty to be $35,000 or less. The Claypool Defendants’ motion is thus DENIED, without prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a); Hiona, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 872; Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 277; Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 270-271.)

III. Conclusion

Defendants Brian E. Claypool and The Claypool Law Firm’s Motion to Reclassify Plaintiff’s Action as a Limited Civil Action is DENIED, without prejudice.