Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV30110, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV30110 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
January 31, 2023
21STCV30110
Motion to Reclassify filed by Defendant Smartstop Self Storage Reit, Inc.
DECISION
The motion is denied.
Moving party to provide notice.
Background
This is an action for negligence arising from an accident where a door malfunctioned on Defendant’s premises that struck Plaintiff. Plaintiff Tracy Ybarra filed her Complaint against Defendants Smartstop Self Storage Reit, Inc. and Rafael on August 16, 2021.
Defendant Smartstop Self Storage Reit, Inc. (“Smartstop”) filed the instant motion to reclassify on December 23, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Smartstop argues that Plaintiff’s damages cannot exceed $25,000 because Plaintiff’s lease with Smartstop bars her claims against it. Additionally, Smartstop alleges that Plaintiff never fell as she alleged and her only injury is a laceration to her achilles heel.
Opposing Arguments
Plaintiff argues that Defendant fails to submit admissible evidence in support of its motion, the motion is untimely, and that Plaintiff’s medical billing shows that her damages exceed $25,000.
Reply Arguments
Smartstop reiterates arguments from its motion.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).) If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).)
In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)
In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set forth in Walker and held that “the court should reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain and clear.” (Id. at 279.) (Emphasis added.) Nevertheless, the plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.” (Ibid.)
Discussion
Smartstop seeks to reclassify this action as a limited civil case on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred under the lease agreement between Plaintiff and Smartstop. Additionally, Smartstop argues that Plaintiff’s only injury is a laceration to her left heel.
Plaintiff argues that Smartstop’s motion is untimely. This action was filed in August 2021 and Smartstop was served in November 2021. It is well-after the time for Plaintiff to amend the pleading. However, Smartstop argues good cause exists for not seeking reclassification earlier because it only received evidence of Plaintiff’s damages through discovery, including Plaintiff’s deposition, which took place in September 2022. Given that Smartstop only recently completed sufficient discovery to determine Plaintiff’s damages, the Court finds good cause exists for not seeking reclassification earlier.
Smartstop first argues that this action should be reclassified because Plaintiff signed a lease agreement with Smartstop that exculpated Smartstop from bodily injury arising from her use of the premises. Specifically, the agreement reads:
“12. RELEASE OF OWNER’S LIABILITY FOR BODILY INJURY: Owner, Manager and their respective agents, employees and affiliates shall not be liable to Occupant for injury or death as a result of Occupant's use of the Leased Space or the Facility, even if such injury is caused by the active or passive acts or omissions or negligence of the Owner, Manger or any of their respective agents, employees or affiliates.”
(Cochran Decl., Exh. 4, p. 3.) However, the Court cannot rule on the merits of Smartstop’s affirmative defense that Plaintiff’s claims are barred under the terms of the parties’ lease agreement. The relevant issue under Walker and Ytuarte is whether there is legal certainty that Plaintiff’s damages will be $25,000 or less. The motion is denied on this ground.
Smartstop next argues that Plaintiff’s damages cannot exceed $25,000 because her only injury is a laceration to the achilles tendon on her left heel caused by a falling door. According to Plaintiff’s discovery responses, she injured her ankle and then fell, injuring her hip, leading to a hip replacement. (Motion, Exh. 11.) Smartstop provides Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and argues that she admitted that she never fell after being struck by the falling door. (Ybarra Depo., 83:21-23.) However, Plaintiff’s medical records state that the fall exacerbated a pre-existing hip condition and that she needed a hip replacement. (Cochran Decl., Exh. 11.) The Court cannot resolve a factual dispute over whether Plaintiff fell as a result of the falling door or whether the falling door caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s hip injury on a motion to reclassify. Plaintiff’s answers to her Form Interrogatories show she incurred medical costs of over $10,000 and there are more costs pending with four other physicians. Based on her other medical costs, there is a possibility that Plaintiff’s total damages will exceed $25,000. Thus, because there is a possibility that a $25,000 judgment is obtainable, Smartstop’s motion is denied.
