Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV01078, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01078    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: P

Cotenescu v. Esthetic Eyes, et al., Case no. 23SMCV01078

Defendants’ Motion to Reclassify to Limited Jurisdiction

Hearing date: 3/26/24

Tentative Ruling:

Via plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed 2/21/24, she alleges 21 causes of action arising out of her employment at defendants’ medical office as a front desk receptionist/personal assistant. Plaintiff, in pro per, alleges inter alia misclassification, failure to reimburse, unfair business practices in her 147-page complaint. It is unclear from the FAC specifically what allegations are being made and what specific damages are being sought. Plaintiff attached photographs of patient files and attic space, as well as text messages, 30 pages in total, to the FAC.

Via the original complaint, filed 3/10/23, plaintiff sought $170 for unreimbursed parking/cell phone charges. She sought $100 in alleged unpaid wages, $62 for failure to pay minimum wage and unspecified damages for alleged Labor Code violations, waiting time penalties and unfair business practices.

A limited civil is a case where the value of the property in controversy amounts to $35,000 or less. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §86(a)(1), raised from $25,000 as of 1/24. 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 more than the jurisdictional limits is “virtually unobtainable,” reclassification to limited jurisdiction is appropriate. Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion lacks any specific evidence or argument as to how she could establish damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit. She did not provide evidence as to the value of any claim, nor argument or evidence as to how her claims could exceed the jurisdictional limit. She refers to her prayer for damages, which seeks unspecified damages. This alone is not enough. There must be some evidence and argument presented.

At a prior court hearing on 2/21/24, in discussing whether reclassification was appropriate, the court inquired of plaintiff the approximate amount of damages claimed. Plaintiff was unable to provide information about the potential value of her claims, even a “ballpark amount” claimed.

Plaintiff argued the motion was not timely. Based upon the FAC filing date of 2/21/24, it is timely. Further, the court and the parties discussed that defendant would be filing the motion at the hearing on 2/21/24. This argument is unavailing. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §403.040(b).

Defendant meets its burden of showing an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits is “virtually unattainable.” Plaintiff fails to present argument or evidence to the contrary. GRANTED. Matter to be reclassified.