Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCV01519, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01519    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Eckhaus v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, Case No. 21SMCV01519

Hearing Date January 13, 2023

Defendant McLaren Automotive’s Motion to Reclassify Unlimited Civil Case to Limited Civil Case Pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §403.040.

Plaintiff Eckhaus alleges she leased a defective vehicle from defendants. She alleges she returned the vehicle to defendants multiple times for repairs, but they failed to fix them. Eckhaus sues for breach of the warranty of merchantability under Cal. Civ. Code §1791 et seq., the Song-Beverly Act.

Defendant McLaren Automotive (MAI) argues discovery revealed Eckhaus suffered no damages, making no lease payments or incurring any other expenses related to the vehicle. MAI argues the case must be reclassified as limited civil.

A limited civil is case where the value of the property in controversy amounts to $25,000 or less. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §86(a)(1). A party may seek reclassification of a case from unlimited to limited jurisdiction upon a showing of good cause. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §403.040. When a party shows that a verdict is in excess of $25,000 is “virtually unobtainable,” reclassification to limited jurisdiction is appropriate. Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262

MAI states Eckhaus’ responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production of documents show she did not suffer any monetary damages, with all repairs paid under warranty and all lease payments made not by Eckhaus personally, but by BBAM Consulting, a third-party company. Therefore, MAI argues, it would be impossible for her to obtain a verdict over $25,000.

Eckhaus argues she paid a total of $34,475.00 out-of-pocket. She admits BBAM made $85,690.00 in monthly lease payments on her behalf, but states she paid $15,000 to the dealership at the time of signing and $19,475 in monthly payments starting in August 2022. Eckhaus declaration ¶¶2, 17.

These claims contradict Eckhaus’ prior sworn deposition testimony and discovery responses. At deposition, Eckhaus was asked “is it fair to say that in terms of the McLaren, you have never paid, personally anything on – in terms of the ownership and operation and repairs associated with the McLaren?” and responded “Yes.” Gibson decl. exhibit G. This is an unambiguous denial and stands in direct contradiction to the current new claim that she paid $34,475. Similarly, plaintiff stated she had no out-of-pocket expenses related to the vehicle in her response to Special Interrogatories 7 and 29 and Requests for Admission Nos 1-3. Gibson decl., exhibits B and C. The court will not permit Eckhaus to contradict her sworn discovery responses regarding out-of-pocket expenses here unless she moves to amend or withdraw them.

Eckhaus argues potential statutory penalties would result in an award exceeding the jurisdictional minimum. Such penalties can only be awarded if a plaintiff suffers actual damages. As Eckhaus admitted she suffered no damages because of the alleged vehicle defects, she would not be able to claim the statutory penalties.

Eckhaus argues she can add BBAM Consulting as a party, since it was BBAM that paid the lease payments. Eckhaus has not identified how BBAM might enter the action as a plaintiff, nor is it clear how Eckhaus has standing to proceed against MAI if BBAM is the real party in interest. Eckhaus cannot suggest hypothetical new parties as a means to avoid reclassification. The action is brought by Eckhaus, who admitted in sworn discovery responses and at deposition that she suffered no actual damages. GRANTED.