Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV28427, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV28427 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025 Dept: 74
JESSE
CANTU vs BEEFREE, INC.
Motion
to Reclassify (Walker Motion)
LEGAL STANDARD
A
court may reclassify a case as limited if it appears to a legal certainty that
the plaintiff’s damages will necessarily be less than $35,000. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040; Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129
Cal.App.4th 266, 277.) A defendant must file a motion for reclassification
within the time allowed for the party to respond to the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040.) If the motion is filed after the statutory
time, the Court shall grant the motion only if the moving party shows good cause
for not seeking reclassification earlier.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(b).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
filed the on October 30, 2024. Defendant
was served on November 4, 2024. (See
Proof of Service.) Defendant had 30 days
to file its motion for reclassification.
Defendant filed the Motion to Reclassify on February 5, 2025. Because
Defendant does not show good cause for the delay (§ 403.040(b)(2)), the Court
denies the motion for that reason alone.
But
even if the Court were to reach the merits, the Court would still deny the
motion. Parties do not dispute that Plaintiff’s request for an injunction is
unavailable in a limited civil case.
(Code Civ Proc. § 580(b).)
Defendant argues that it has already offered Plaintiff a section 998 offer
which included an agreement to clearly label the amount of foods inside the
packaging, rendering in Plaintiff’s view injunctive relief moot. (Scripps Health v. Marin (1999) 72
Cal.App.4th 324, 332-33.) The parties
have not yet, however, entered into a settlement or stipulated judgment aligned
with the 998 offer, therefore Plaintiff’s request for injunction is not
moot.
Defendant
also seeks a protective order to limit discovery. Given that the case has not been transferred
to limited civil, the discovery limits in limited proceedings do not apply
here. Moreover, request for a protective order requires its own separate
noticed motion instead of being part, as it is here, of another motion.
CONCLUSION
The
Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Reclassification and request for Protective
Order.