Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00686, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00686    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Hasmik Manoukyan (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 7, 2022 and sustained personal injuries and property damage.  She alleges that Defendant Macario Martin Veyra Sosa (“Sosa”) operated a vehicle owned by Defendant California Panel & Vaneer Company (“CP&VC”).  Plaintiff alleges that Sosa was an employee of CP&VC. 

The complaint, filed March 28, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence.   

B.     Motion on Calendar

On September 26, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to reclassify this action from an unlimited civil case to a limited civil case.  The same day, Defendants filed an amended motion.  The Court will consider the amended motion papers as the operative moving papers. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

An action shall be treated as a limited civil case where: (a) the amount of controversy does not exceed $25,000; (b) the relief sought is a type that may be granted in a limited civil case; and (c) the relief sought is exclusively of a type described in one ore more statutes that classify an action or special proceeding as a limited case or that provide that an action or special proceeding is within the original jurisdiction of a municipal court, including, but not limited to section 86.  (CCP § 85(a), (b), (c)(4).)  The “amount in controversy” means the amount of the demand, or the recovery sought, or the value of the property, or the amount of the lien, that is in controversy in the action, exclusive of attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.  (CCP § 85(a).) 

CCP § 86 defines a limited civil case as a case at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, amounts to $25,000 or less.  (CCP § 86(a)(1).)  A limited case may also include a proceeding in unlawful detainer where the whole amount of damages claimed is $25,000 or less.  (CCP § 86(a)(5).) 

A motion to reclassify may be filed by a plaintiff within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading.  (CCP § 403.040(a).)  A defendant may file such a motion within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading.  (Id.)  The court, on its own motion, may reclassify at any time.  (Id.)  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.  (Id.)  If a party files a motion after such periods, the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both condition are satisfied: (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.  (CCP § 403.040(b).) 

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to reclassify the action from unlimited jurisdiction to limited jurisdiction, arguing that the amount in controversy is less than $25,000.  Defendants argue that at the time of subject incident, Plaintiff was the driver of the BMW vehicle, but there was no valid automobile liability coverage for her and the vehicle she was driving, such that Prop 213 applies.  Defendants argue that Plaintiff is only eligible receive medical specials and no general damages, which Defendants claim that Plaintiff does not dispute.  (Mot. at p.3, lines 19-20.) 

Defendants state that they have propounded discovery on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s deposition is currently scheduled for December 8, 2023.  (Mot. at Exs. C-E [Discovery Requests], Ex. F [Notice of Deposition].)  Defendants state that they have not yet received discovery responses from Plaintiff.  At most, Defendants provide a document from Arman Sahakyan (Plaintiff’s counsel) to Travelers Insurance with attachments, showing that Plaintiff has incurred $4,140 in chiropractic charges.  (Mot. Ex. G.)  In the letter to Travelers, Mr. Sahakyan states that Plaintiff’s medical specials coupled with pain and suffering as of date (dated December 14, 2022) exceed the insured’s policy limits.  (Id.)

The Court notes that the motion is not opposed.  Based on the evidence provided by Defendants, it appears that this action will not exceed $25,000 and, therefore, should be classified as a limited jurisdiction case.   As the motion is unopposed, Plaintiff has not provided evidence showing that her damages will exceed this amount.

The Court grants Defendant’s motion to reclassify the action to limited jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Defendants’ motion to reclassify the action from unlimited to limited jurisdiction is granted.  The case shall be designated as a limited jurisdiction case.  The Court declines to transfer the case to a limited jurisdiction courtroom.  The case will remain here in Department B of the Burbank Courthouse but will be treated under the code provisions governing limited cases.

Defendants shall provide notice of this order.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:  All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.