Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00927, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00927    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                        Thursday, December 8, 2022           

Department B                                                                                                                    Calendar No. 8

PROCEEDINGS

Home Building Specialists v. Stuart Kam, et al.   

21TRCV00927

1.      Stuart Kam’s Motion to Reclassify Case as Limited Jurisdiction    

TENTATIVE RULING

            Stuart Kam’s Motion to Reclassify Case as Limited Jurisdiction is denied.

            Background

            Plaintiff filed the Complaint on December 27, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff contracted with Defendant to perform construction services for Defendant on Defendant’s property. Defendant failed to pay for the services. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Breach of Contract; 2. Common Count – Account Stated; 3. Common Count – Money Owed.   

            Motion to Reclassify

            Code Civ. Proc., § 86(a)(1) states, in relevant part: “The following civil cases and proceedings are limited civil cases: (1) 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.”  Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040(a) states, in relevant part: “The plaintiff, cross-complainant, or petitioner may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading.  The defendant or cross-defendant may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. The court, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time.” Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040(b) states: “If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party to amend that party's initial pleading or to respond to a complaint, cross-complaint, or other initial pleading, 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. (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.”

            Reclassification is appropriate where “the action . . . will necessarily involve the determination of questions not within the jurisdiction of the court.”  Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 269 (emphasis in original.)  A case should only be reclassified as limited if the jurisdictional amount necessarily cannot be reached.  See Id. at 273. This is a high standard that amounts to “legal certainty.” Id. at p. 270.  A case should not be reclassified if the court believes it is merely unlikely that the jurisdictional amount will be reached. Id. 

            Defendant moves for reclassification on the ground that a verdict will necessarily result in an amount within the jurisdiction of the court of limited jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s own billing statement to Defendant shows an amount owing of $11,000.00. (Decl., Stuart Kam, Ex. 1.)  However, Plaintiff filed an opposition (titled “objection”) and submitted evidence that the actual amounts now owing is over $38,000 due to additional work and change orders.  (Decl., Kevin McMinn.)  Plaintiff disputes that this is the amount that is owing.  However, the Court cannot adjudicate the parties’ factual dispute with this motion.  Defendant has not established, for purposes of this motion, that a verdict of less than $25,000 necessarily cannot be reached, and that it is a legal certainty that a verdict of less than $25,000 will be reached.

            Thus, the Motion to Reclassify is denied.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.