Judge Audra Mori, Case 22STCV00611 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Joan Gardner (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Ross Dress for Less, Inc., sued and served as Ross Stores, Inc., (“Defendant”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained when she struck her forehead on a metal pole in Defendant’s store. The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and premises liability against Defendant.

At this time, Defendant moves for an order to reclassify this action as a limited jurisdiction case. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply.

Defendant contends that the damages in this action are too small for this case to be heard by an unlimited jurisdiction court. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has had one medical visit to date, and that she has not received any further medical treatment. Defendant states that Plaintiff’s recoverable medical expenses total $1449.45 and contends that the lack of any further claimed damages is sufficient evidence to find Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount that falls below the jurisdictional floor of this Court. Further, Defendant contends there is good cause for bringing this motion after filing the answer because Plaintiff did not state the amount of damages she was seeking and Defendant has been conducting discovery about Plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff opposes the motion arguing that discovery has not been concluded in this matter, as Defendant has not deposed Plaintiff or had her examined by its experts. Further, Plaintiff argues that Defendant fails to address Plaintiff’s claim for general damages, including for pain, suffering and emotional distress. Plaintiff asserts that she experiences headaches and neck pain on a nightly basis and constantly experiences visual disturbances because of the incident. Plaintiff argues that given her injuries and complaints, it is possible that her general damages will exceed $25,000.00.

In reply, Defendant concedes that Plaintiff’s claims for pain and suffering are to be determined by the trier of fact, but Defendant asserts nevertheless that Plaintiff’s medical bills total less than $2,000.00. Defendant argues that it is clear that Plaintiff’s general damages will not exceed $25,000.

(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:

The Walker court delineated the standard for ordering a case transferred, holding that 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 v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.)

The test is whether lack of jurisdiction is clear or virtually unattainable. (Id., at p. 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 p. 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. (Walker, supra; Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.)

Here, Defendant primarily contends this matter should be reclassified to a limited jurisdiction action because Plaintiff’s medical billing to date totals less than $2,000.00. However, Plaintiff is also seeking general damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Court cannot find as a matter of law that the case will necessarily result in a verdict below $25,000, as the Court cannot value Plaintiff’s pain and suffering. That is the function of the trier of fact. (Walker, 53 Cal.3d at 270; Maldonado, 45 Cal.App.4th at 401.) Discovery in this case remains open. It is possible that a plaintiff can be awarded $25,000 as damages for pain and suffering alone in certain cases. (See Singer v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321 [“ ‘… The unlikeliness of a judgment in excess of $25,000 is not the test. The trial court reviews the record to determine whether the result is obtainable. Simply stated, the trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability.’ ” (emphasis in original).].)

The motion to transfer the case to limited jurisdiction court is, therefore, denied.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court