Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00729, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00729    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

 Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) is GRANTED.

Background

This case arises from the dog bite of a minor.

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff Lidia Gonzalez as Guardian Ad Litem for Ronny Gonzalez filed suit against Defendants Manuel Castro, Maria Rosario Castro, Lucia Melo for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability.

On August 29, 2023, default was entered against Lucia Melo and Maria Rosario Castro.

On September 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a POS as to Estate of Manuel Castro, sued herein as DOE 1.[1]

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of lis pendens.

On October 19, 2023, the court issued the following minute order during the CMC hearing: “The Court informs the Defendant, Maria Rosario Castro, that she is currently in Default Status. On the Court’s own motion pursuant to CCP §403.040(a), the matter is set for a Walker Hearing as to whether the matter should be reclassified as a limited jurisdiction case under Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257. The parties are ordered to file briefs nine (9) calendar days before the scheduled hearing. If a party so desires, it may file a reply brief five (5) calendar days before the scheduled hearing.”

On November 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their brief.

Legal Standard

According to CCP section 403.040, a court, “on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time.”  The court must give notice and allow the parties an opportunity to contest the reclassification. (Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 229-231.)

As for the requirements of reclassification from an unlimited to a limited case, trial court must find that the matter will necessarily result in a verdict below the jurisdictional amount required by statute for classification as an unlimited civil case. (Hiona v. Superior Court (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 866, 872.)  “Necessarily” means that there is “a high level of certainty that a damage award will not exceed $25,000.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 268-270.) Finding that a judgment that exceeds $25,000 is merely “unlikely” or “not reasonably probable” is not sufficient to support reclassification of the case as a limited civil case. (Hiona, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 872.) In sum, in making the determination to reclassify, legal certainty is required. (Chahal v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 399, 402-403.)

Discussion

Based on the brief, if the minor receives surgery for the hypertrophic scar, it will cost about $8,800.00 beyond the $2802 already expended. $11,602 is less than $25,000.01. Plaintiffs have not sought other damages nor provided an explanation for other damages.

Thus, by Plaintiffs’ own explanation, it is certain that the damages in this case will not exceed $25,000.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court reclassifies the case to limited.