Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV37986, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37986    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 28

Motion for Reclassification and Transfer to Limited Jurisdiction

This motion for reclassification and transfer to limited jurisdiction was filed by Brian Agito, Sophia Agito, Pierre Cedro, and Vincent Cedro (collectively, Defendants).  The Court notes that this motion is the first the Court is learning of these defendants, except for named defendant Pierre Cedro.  The Court considers all movants named as defendants for the purposes of this motion and asks Noune Sarkisyan (Plaintiff) to file an “Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)” form with the Court.

            Having considered the moving and opposing papers, as well as the argument of counsel, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

This is an action that arises out of an alleged motor vehicle collision on November 6, 2019 in Burbank, California.  Plaintiff filed this action against Pierre Cedro and Does 1 through 25 on October 14, 2021, alleging one cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Defendants move the Court for reclassification and transfer to limited jurisdiction because Plaintiff cannot recover more than $25,000 in this action.  In opposition, Plaintiff contends Defendants do not meet their burden of proving the damage will not exceed $25,000.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where the caption to a plaintiff’s complaint fails to state that an action is a limited civil case, a party may file a motion for reclassification.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 422.30(b).)  Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040(b) provides:

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: 1) The case is incorrectly classified. 2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.

A matter may be reclassified as a limited civil action when in the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will necessarily result in a verdict below the Superior Court’s jurisdictional amount.  (Walker v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262 (Walker); Ytuarte v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276.)  This standard requires a high level of certainty that a damage award will not exceed $25,000 and is not satisfied by a finding that such an award is merely unlikely or not reasonably probable.  (See Walker, supra, at 269.)  Moreover, the court must assume the existence of the facts supporting the complaint, not determine the claim on the merits.  (Ibid.)  The trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability.  (Maldanado v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 397, 402.)

DISCUSSION

In the caption of her complaint, Plaintiff alleged the action is an unlimited civil case exceeding $25,000.  (Complaint p. 1.)  Accordingly, Defendants are required to prove both that the case was incorrectly classified and that there was good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.

Defendants argue good cause exists for not having sought reclassification earlier because, “only recently did Plaintiff serve their supplemental discovery responses and section 998 offer.”  (Motion p. 5.)  The Court finds that if Defendants were only put on notice of the amount in controversy based on Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery responses and Section 998 Offer, then Defendants have good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff only alleges damages amounting to $10,125, the amount of Plaintiff’s past medical expenses.  (Motion pp. 3-4; Motion, Exh. A.)  However, Plaintiff’s asserted damages are not limited to past medical expenses.  Plaintiff also seeks future medical expenses which include “one to three cervical and lumbar epidural injection” at a cost of $8,000 each.  (Opposition p. 2, Exh. A p. 6.)  Defendants characterize Plaintiff’s prospective medical expenses as being “in the amount of $8,000” based on Plaintiff’s answer to form interrogatories.  (Motion p. 5; Motion, Exh. B, p. 7.)  However, Plaintiff’s claim for future medical expenses is not only $8,000, but at least $8,000.  Moreover, Plaintiff also makes claims for general damages, such as lost earning capacity and pain and suffering, which Defendants do not address.

Defendants argue that even Plaintiff does not calculate her damages as exceeding $25,000 based on her October 7, 2022 service of a California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer (Section 998 Offer) for $25,000.00.  (Motion p. 5.)  However, a Section 998 Offer is not Plaintiff’s valuation of the case, nor does it set a ceiling for Plaintiff’s maximum recovery.  Rather, by definition, it is, “an offer by a party to compromise.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 998.)  The value of Plaintiff’s Section 998 Offer is not determinative of the amount in controversy of the case.

Therefore, Defendants have not established that this matter will necessarily result in a verdict below the jurisdictional amount of $25,000 to warrant reclassification.

CONCLUSION        

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for reclassification and transfer to limited jurisdiction is DENIED.