Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 22SMCV01418, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01418, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01418 Hearing Date: January 19, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Roth v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 22SMCV01418

Hearing date January 19, 2024

Defendant Arakelian Enterprises’ Motion to Reclassify Matter as Limited Jurisdiction

Plaintiff Roth alleges defendant Arakelian dba Athens’s sanitation truck struck his parked car. The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence and (2) breach of contract. Plaintiff seeks “general and/or compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.” Complaint, 29:1. The complaint does not set forth an identifiable sum of monetary relief sought.

On December 13, 2023 the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel Athens’ further responses to plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents. On December 21, 2023, Athens moved for an order reclassifying this case as one of limited jurisdiction.

The Court rejects plaintiff’s argument that the motion should be denied due to a clerical error in the notice. Athens’ notice of errata corrected its error, and plaintiff has not shown prejudice due to the typographical error.

“The court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification, regardless of any fault or lack of fault, if the case has been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification.” Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).

Athens argues this action should be reclassified because the amount in controversy is less than $25,000. Plaintiff asserts the amount in controversy is reasonably expected to exceed $25,000 due to the breach of contract causes of action.

“[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, 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276, citation omitted, internal quotations omitted, emphasis in original. “[T]he test [is] . . . whether lack of jurisdiction is clear . . . [or] virtually unattainable.” Id. at p. 277, citation omitted, internal quotations omitted. “This standard involves an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim, and . . . requires a high level of certainty that [the] damage award will not exceed $25,000.” Id., citation omitted, emphasis original. “[T]he superior 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.” Id., emphasis original.

Defendant argues that other than one section in which plaintiff alleges his vehicle sustained “street side damage to the side of his car,” he makes no allegations of the extent of damage to his vehicle. Weiss Decl., ¶ 6. In discovery responses, plaintiff fails to provide information related to alleged damage sustained to his vehicle. Weiss Decl., ¶ 7. Plaintiff indicated it was unknown or unrecallable as to what, if any, repairs were made. Weiss Decl., ¶ 8; Exhibits B and C. Plaintiff failed to provide responses to the “9 Series—Other Damages” of form interrogatories. Weiss Decl., ¶ 9.

Plaintiff failed to provide documentation of alleged damage in response to a request for production of documents. Weiss Decl., ¶ 10; Exhibits D and E. Defendant has been provided no information regarding the amount of damages, other than a statement plaintiff made at the informal discovery conference when plaintiff responded to the court’s inquiry regarding the amount of damage to his vehicle, to which plaintiff responded “about $5,000.” Weiss Decl., ¶ 11.

Despite efforts to obtain information as to plaintiff’s claimed damages, plaintiff states such information was provided to defendant’s customer service pre-suit. Weiss Decl., ¶ 12.

In opposition, plaintiff argues multiple contract breaches support unlimited jurisdiction. Roth Decl., ¶¶ 6-7. Plaintiff argues liquated damages are stated to support unlimited jurisdiction. Roth Decl., ¶ 19. Plaintiff sets forth examples of intentional and misleading statements in Weiss’ declaration. Roth Decl., ¶¶ 10-18.

The SAC does not set forth a specific amount of damages sought. From the face of the SAC, the Court cannot conclude plaintiff’s damages will not exceed $25,000. Statements in a declaration of counsel cannot establish damages.

Plaintiff provided no substantive information or documents as to damages in response to discovery. The court must therefore conclude there is no such evidence. Weiss Decl., Exhibits C and E. Per the discovery responses, the court must conclude to a legal certainty the damages cannot exceed $25,000.

Regarding plaintiff’s breach of contract claims, he has not shown evidence or substantively responded to discovery establishing a contract with defendant, his own performance, defendant’s breach or damages. CACI 300, et seq. He has not produced documentation establishing any of these elements, nor has he substantively responded to discovery regarding these elements.

Based upon the foregoing, the court concludes that, to a legal certainty, plaintiff’s damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. The motion is GRANTED.