Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 19STCV13458, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV13458    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: 74

[Tentative] Defendant’s Motion filed January 27, 2023, to Bifurcate

The court denies the motion to bifurcate.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendant Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Plaintiffs Brian Mathew Walker and Veronica Walker         

Motion to Reclassify Matter as Limited Civil Jurisdiction

BACKGROUND     

            This action arises from a tractor accident. In December 2018, Plaintiff Brian Mathew Walker was driving a tractor and collided with another tractor (Subject Tractor) owned by Lincoln Transport Phoenix, Inc. (Lincoln Phoenix). One of Lincoln Phoenix’s independent contractors was operating the Subject Tractor. Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries as a result.

            On January 1, 2018, nearly one year before the accident, Defendant Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc. (Defendant) sold the Subject Tractor to Lincoln Phoenix. However, Defendant failed to file the transfer of sale documents with the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

            On April 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, later amending the complaint to add Lincoln Phoenix. The complaint alleges motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and loss of consortium.

            Although Plaintiff settled with Lincoln Phoenix, the issue remains whether Defendant owned the Subject Tractor at the time of accident, breached any non-delegable duty, and negligently entrusted the vehicle.

            On January 27, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to reclassify the matter from unlimited to limited jurisdiction.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)

            However, if the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).) 

            In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262 (Walker), the California Supreme Court held that 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, at p. 262 (Walker).) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000, 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.) 

DISCUSSION 

            Defendant contends that this case is misclassified in light of Vehicle Code sections 17150 and 17151. Under those provisions, an owner of a motor vehicle is vicariously liable for death or injury resulting from another person’s negligent operation of the vehicle, if that person had the owner’s express or implied permission to operate the vehicle. (Vehicle Code, § 17150.) Moreover, the liability of an owner in this context is limited to $15,000. (Vehicle Code, § 17151.) Defendant moves for reclassification of this matter from unlimited to limited jurisdiction on the assumption that Plaintiff cannot recover more than $15,000. However, these Vehicle Code provisions only address Defendant’s potential vicarious liability. Defendant’s own potential negligence is at issue here as well—specifically, whether Defendant breached a non-delegable duty or negligently entrusted the tractor. Indeed, this court has already held that there are triable issues of fact as to Plaintiff’s causes of action of Motor Vehicle Negligence and General Negligence. Consequently, there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00.

            Thus, Defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating that this matter is incorrectly classified.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Defendant’s motion for reclassification.   

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿March 29, 2023 

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court