Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV23896, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23896    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Guadalupe Guerrero initiated this employment discrimination action back in June 2021. Plaintiff passed away in January 2022, and the action is now being pursued by his successor-in-interest, Maria del Carmen Hernandez.

            On July 12, 2022, Defendant City of Los Angeles filed the instant motion to reclassify the case from unlimited jurisdiction to limited jurisdiction. Defendant argues that because Plaintiff is deceased, he cannot recover emotional distress damages as a matter of law, limiting his damages to lost wages for one year, or approximately $18,000. Plaintiff responded with a notice of non-opposition on July 21, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD

A limited civil case is, inter alia, “[a] case at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.” (CCP § 86(a)(1).) An unlimited civil case is a civil action or proceeding other than a limited civil case. (CCP § 88.)

“A trial court has authority to conduct a pretrial hearing [a Walker hearing] to obtain information about whether the amount of the judgment will require reclassification.” (Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 229.) “Under the Walker standard, a matter may be

reclassified as a limited civil action ‘when (i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (ii) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will “necessarily” result in a verdict below the superior court's jurisdictional amount....’ ” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276.) Under the latter test, the trial court “must deny the motion to reclassify the case as limited (and thus keep the matter in the unlimited civil court) unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff’s damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. This standard of ‘legal certainty’ is not met when it appears a verdict within the unlimited court’s jurisdiction is ‘possible.’” (Id. at 277.)

“A party moving for reclassification should make a noticed motion.” (Stern, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at 230.)

“If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party to … to respond to a complaint … , 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 [and] (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.” (CCP § 403.040(b).)

DISCUSSION

I. The Case is Incorrectly Classified

            “In an action or proceeding by a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest on the decedent’s cause of action, the damages recoverable . . . do not include damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement.” (CCP § 377.34(a).)

            Plaintiff was terminated in January 2021. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff passed away one year later in January 2022. (Hernandez Decl. ISO Mtn. to be Appointed Successor-in-Interest ¶ 2.) Because the action is proceeding through Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest, damages for emotional distress are unrecoverable as a matter of law. (See CCP § 377.34(a).) Plaintiff’s yearly salary was $18,363.24. (Ramirez Decl., Ex. A.) Accordingly, the damages in this action are necessarily below the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum. (See Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 276.) Plaintiff does not dispute that the damages in this case are so limited. Therefore, the case is incorrectly classified.

II. Defendant Had Good Cause for Not Filing Earlier

            While Plaintiff passed away in January 2022, Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest was not appointed until June 29, 2022, when the Court granted Ms. Hernandez’s motion. (Quach Decl. ¶ 6.) Before then, Defendant did not know whether the action would continue. (Ibid.) Defendant filed this motion promptly after the Court’s ruling on June 29. Plaintiff does not dispute that this constitutes good cause. Therefore, Defendant had good cause for not filing this motion earlier.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to reclassify is GRANTED.