Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 22SMCV00401, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00401    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

MOVING PARTY:                    Defendants Luis Soliz and Picasso Aquariums, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:         Plaintiff Soma Surgery Center

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a dispute over a fish tank.  Plaintiff Soma Surgery Center owns a saltwater aquarium with exotic and expensive fishes.  It hired Defendants Luis Soliz and Picasso Aquariums, LLC to clean the tank.  Plaintiff claims that while cleaning the tank over the course of several days, Defendants turned off the filters, which also turned off the tank’s oxygen.  Plaintiff expressed concern to Defendants that the fishes were being deprived of oxygen and could die.  Defendants assured Plaintiff that the fishes would not be harmed.  Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendants discovered the fishes had died.  The operative complaint alleges claims for negligence and trespass to chattel.    

This hearing is on Defendants’ motion to reclassify the case from unlimited to limited or small claims.  Defendants allege they sold the aquarium, fishes and cleaning services to Plaintiff for $5,606.86 (Ex. to Motion), and as a result, Plaintiff’s damages could not possibly exceed $25,000. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Actions in which the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less are classified as limited jurisdiction cases. (Code Civ. Proc. § 86, subd. (a)(1).)  The court may order a case reclassified as a limited civil case upon finding to a legal certainty that a judgment over $25,000 cannot be obtained.  (CCP §§ 396, 403.040(a).)                                                                                                      The code requires reclassification “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 jurisdictional amount, and the court affords the parties an opportunity to contest transfer.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.)  “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.’”  (Id. at p. 269.)  “The [trial] court may believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, but this is not enough to defeat jurisdiction, unless it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recover the amount [of the] demand[.]”  (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 277); see also Maldonado v. Superior Court of Orange County (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 402 (“the trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability.”)).            

Courts have required an adequate record, but not necessarily competent evidence, in support of transfers to a limited jurisdiction court.  (See Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 233 (evidence can include the complaint, arbitration awards and a settlement recommendation).)  However, “the party opposing reclassification (from unlimited to limited), to defeat the motion (or oppose the OSC), must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the verdict will exceed $25,000.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 277.)  Without sufficient evidence as to the value of the case, where the allegations of the complaint preclude a finding that the verdict will “necessarily” fall short of the $25,001 jurisdictional requirement, a reclassification order may be an abuse of discretion.  (Stern 105 Cal.App.4th at 233.)  Moreover, a motion to reclassify does not involve an evaluation of the merits of the claims. (Id.) 

DISCUSSION

As evidence that Plaintiff’s losses will not exceed $25,000, Defendant submitted a largely illegible invoice purportedly showing that the tank, fishes and cleaning totaled only $5,606.86.  (Ex. to Motion.)  Plaintiff attests that the invoice reflects only a portion of the fishes it purchased and that in total, it spent $20,000, and not $5,606.86.  (Ravaei Decl. ¶7.)  Further, Plaintiff avers that it lost the “use and enjoyment” of the fishes, thereby “damaging Plaintiffs’ name, reputation, customer base, employee relations and goodwill in a sum estimated to be [] at least $10,000 at this time.”  (Ravaei Decl. ¶9.)  The Court also notes Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages.  (Compl. ¶24.)  While the Court finds these claims dubious, it cannot evaluate the merits of the claims in a motion to reclassify, and given Plaintiff’s declaration that it is seeking at least $30,000 in damages, the Court cannot conclude to a legal certainty that Plaintiff will not recover more than $25,000.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to reclassify this case from unlimited to limited jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2023                                                   ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court