Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02260, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02260    Hearing Date: August 26, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     August 26, 2024                                  TRIAL DATE:  January 21, 2025

CASE:                         MYRA WOLFINBARGER v. CITY OF ARCADIA, a public entity, CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, a public entity, CITY OF PASADENA, a public entity, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a public entity; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a public entity; and DOES 1 TO 50, Inclusive

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV02260

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant City of Arcadia

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Myra Wolfinbarger

SERVICE:                             Filed July 24, 2024

OPPOSITION:                     Filed August 14, 2024

REPLY:                                 Filed August 16, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant moves to reclassify this unlimited civil case as a limited civil case           

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a trip and fall incident that allegedly occurred on October 5, 2022. The form complaint was filed on September 29, 2023. The complaint alleged Plaintiff suffered wage los, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, and loss of earning capacity. No damages sum is alleged in the complaint. There is no statement of damages in the file. About a year after this case was filed, Defendant seeks to reclassify this case from unlimited to limited jurisdiction.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant City of Arcadia's motion for reclassification of matter to limited jurisdiction is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Defendant’s requests for judicial notice as to Plaintiff’s complaint filed September 29, 2023 and Defendant’s Answer filed November 9, 2023 are granted pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d).

LEGAL STANDARD

Defendant seeks relief under CCP § 403.040(b), which provides, in pertinent part: 

“If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party to . . . respond to a complaint, . . . 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.”

In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, the California Supreme Court held “a matter may be transferred when: (1) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (2) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will necessarily result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount and the court affords the parties an opportunity to contest the transfer.” (Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at 262.) 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, supra, 53 Cal.3d at 262.) 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.)¿¿¿ 

The test is whether lack of jurisdiction is clear or virtually unattainable. (Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at 269.) 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.) The trial court may believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, but this is not enough to defeat jurisdiction, unless it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recover the amount of the demand. (Id. at 270.) 

In deciding whether a matter should be transferred, a trial court must look beyond the pleadings but not so far as to trespass into the province of the trier of fact. Pain and suffering are not subject to precise measurement by any scale, and their translation into money damages is peculiarly the function of the trier of the fact. (Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.) 

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant argues that this matter should be reclassified to a limited jurisdiction matter, as discovery has shown that the amount in controversy does not exceed $35,000.   

As an initial matter, this argument is based on the current version of CCP § 86(a)(1), which provides:

“(a) The following civil cases and proceedings are limited civil cases:

(1) A case at law if the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) or less.”

The statute was revised effective January 1, 2024 to increase the jurisdictional minimum from $25,000 to $35,000. This case was filed on September 29, 2023. Accordingly, the case appears to be subject to the jurisdictional minimum in effect on that date, which was $25,000. Caselaw interpreting former versions of jurisdictional statutes when the limits were adjusted has held that where there is a statutory change of jurisdiction of a court and no clearly expressed intention to the contrary, the amended statute will be held to operate prospectively rather than retrospectively. (Dillon v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 437, 439.) The statute here does not include any express language indicating that the new jurisdictional minimum was intended to apply retroactively, as opposed to prospectively, that is, for cases filed on or after January 1, 2024. 

This motion does not address this issue or explain why the January 1, 2024 amendment should be applied in this case retroactively.  The Court will apply the $25,000 minimum, as opposed to the $35,000 minimum used in the moving papers. 

Defendant argues that according to Plaintiff’s own representations the total amount of plaintiff’s special damages for the medical treatment he received is $4,190. 

Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, in which Plaintiff identified a total of $4,190 in medical treatment charges. (Jones Decl., Exh. B, Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 6.4.) In Plaintiff’s June 5, 2024 deposition, when asked if there are future appointments for treatment of her neck, she said no and testified that she ceased treatment in 2023 and that she does not have any future appointments scheduled or future treatment recommended. (Jones Decl. ¶ 10, Exh. C., Wolfinbarger Depo. at 32:16-21.) Further, Plaintiff’s responses do not indicate a written estimate for property loss, and do not attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the incident. (Jones Decl. ¶ 10, Exh. B, Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 7.2, 8.1.)

These damages, along with proportionate pain and suffering damages would appear to not rise to the sum of $25,000.   

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s motion is untimely and fails to show good cause, Defendant misrepresents Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and discovery responses, and Plaintiff’s damages clearly exceed the jurisdictional limit. Plaintiff argues Defendant fails to address Plaintiff’s statements about her ongoing injuries, need for future treatment, and her ongoing pain and suffering.

Based on the information provided, Defendant fails to show that to a legal certainty, Plaintiff cannot recover at least $25,000. The opposition shows Plaintiff evidently plans to claim additional damages as she is still suffering from the injury including limits on mobility, pain and suffering, and has been recommended future treatment for her injuries. Defendant presents no evidence that Plaintiff is fully recovered, especially considering she is alleging future expenses and general damages. Defendant does not adequately address this in its reply. Thus, the motion is denied.

CONCLUSION

Defendant City of Arcadia's motion for reclassification of matter to limited jurisdiction is DENIED.

Moving Party to provide notice.

Dated:   August 26, 2024                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org