Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV28837, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28837    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to reclassify this case as a limited civil case is GRANTED.

On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez brought this action against Defendants Dr. T.G. Chow, in his individual and representative capacity for the Chow Trust, and Hyung Shin Paek, asserting violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Disabled Persons Act. Plaintiff alleges that on March 29, 2022, he visited a liquor store located at 925 Cypress Ave., Los Angeles, CA (the “Premises”). The Chow Trust owns the Premises and Paek owned and operated the liquor store at the time of Plaintiff’s visit. According to Plaintiff, the paths of travel in the liquor store were too narrow and there was no accessible parking on the Premises. Plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant.

On January 4, 2023, the Court ordered a stay of the entire case pending an Early Evaluation Conference. The stay was lifted after the Early Evaluation Conference on February 27, 2023.

Defendants now move to reclassify this action from an unlimited civil case to a limited civil case.

Legal Standard

“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.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(b).)

Discussion

            Defendants brings this motion to reclassify, arguing: Plaintiff’s maximum statutory damages fall short of the $25,000 threshold for unlimited civil cases; and Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot because Defendants have taken remedial measures to remove any architectural barriers.

In opposition, Plaintiff: Admits he is not seeking more than $25,000 in damages; but argues reclassification is inappropriate because it would require the Court to adjudicate the merits of Plaintiff’s claim to determine whether Plaintiff is still entitled to an injunction.

“[A] matter may be reclassified as a limited civil action “when (i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (ii) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court's jurisdictional amount....”

(Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276–277, quoting Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 279.)

Courts impose a “high standard” because “it has been recognized that when a trial court inquires into the facts of a case in order to determine amount in controversy, the court runs the risk of depriving a plaintiff of the right to a jury trial in the forum of choice.” (Walker, 53 Cal.3d at 270.) (Ibid.) “This standard involves an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim…” (Ytuarte, 129 Cal.App.4th at 277.)

Here, Defendants meet this high standard. Regarding monetary damages, Plaintiff’s complaint prays for statutory penalties of $4,000.00 per violation and alleges two violations. (Complaint, pg. 9, lines 16-21.) This falls below the $25,000 threshold even if treble damages apply. Indeed, Plaintiff admits he is not seeking more than $25,000. Thus, it is clear from the complaint that monetary damages will necessarily fall below the jurisdictional amount for unlimited civil cases.

Regarding injunctive relief, the issue appears to be moot. In his complaint, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to take the following actions: (1) Remove existing architectural barriers; (2) obtain a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”) architectural inspection of the Premises and follow the inspection’s recommendations; and (3) implement accessibility policies and require employee training.

In response, Defendants, offer evidence that remedial measures have been taken to address Plaintiff’s concerns. (Chow Decl., ¶¶ 5, 8-9, Ex. A; Paek Decl., ¶¶ 13-14, Ex. A.) The declarations and supporting photographs offered by Defendants show Defendants have: (1) Addressed the architectural barriers listed in Plaintiff’s complaint by adding an ADA-compliant accessibility parking spot and posting signs at the entrance stating that accessibility assistance is available on request (Chow Decl., Ex. A; Paek Decl., Ex. A); (2) obtained a CASp inspection certificate and addressed the non-compliant elements identified by the Certified Accessibility Specialist’s report (Chow Decl., ¶¶ 8-9); and (3) implemented accessibility policies by posting conspicuous signs with the International Symbol of Accessibility and instructing employees to provide assistance when necessary. (Paek Decl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff offers no evidence these measures have not been taken.

Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief falls below the $25,000 threshold and Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot. The Court need not evaluate the merits to determine that the matter will necessarily result in a verdict below the jurisdictional amount for unlimited civil cases.

Defendants’ motion to reclassify is therefore GRANTED.

It is so ordered.

Dated: April     , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.