Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC02507, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC02507    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND RECLASSIFY COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Nicole Jackson

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant Jorge Hernandez

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND RECLASSIFY COMPLAINT

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576)

(CRC 3.1324; CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED.

Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s Motion to Reclassify Complaint is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 [OK]

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 [OK]

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     [OK]

OPPOSITION:          Filed on July 28, 2022.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 9, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nicole Jackson (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Jorge Hernandez (“Defendant”) for general and motor vehicle negligence.  The action arises out of an automobile accident that allegedly occurred on March 16, 2018.  On April 15, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) that reclassified the case to an unlimited civil case.  On July 9, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s FAC since the time for filing an amended pleading had lapsed and the FAC was filed without leave of court.  Plaintiff filed an Opposition and Defendant filed a Reply.  (8-2-21 Opposition; 8-5-21 Reply.)  On August 12, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s FAC and reclassified the case to limited civil jurisdiction.  (8-12-21 Minute Order (Motion to Strike); 8-12-21 Minute Order (Reclassification).)

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend and Reclassify Complaint (“Motion”).  On July 28, 2022, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion.

No reply was filed.

II.              Legal Standard and Discussion

A.    Leave to Amend

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a) and § 576.  The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.  [Citation.]”  (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422.)  Notwithstanding the “policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . . .’ [citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].”  (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a), (b).)

Plaintiff moves for an order allowing her to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).  Plaintiff states that the intention of the amendment is to “add or alter legal theories based on facts already pleaded.”  (Mot. p. 3.)  She also seeks to “plead allegations with more detail and specificity, so that defendant can properly respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests.”  (Ibid. p. 7.)  She states that she seeks to amend the complaint to “add additional clarification and details requested by defendant” because “defendant counsel expressed confusion regarding Plaintiff’s operative complaint and Plaintiff believes that clarification will reduce the additional time needed at trial to testify about these matters.”  (Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)  Plaintiff argues that the amendments are “all related to the facts originally pleaded” and will not prejudice Defendant.  (Mot. p. 8.)  Plaintiff also states that Defendant was previously served with a copy of the FAC and cannot claim unreasonable delay in filing the Motion.  (Ibid. at p. 7.)  She also argues that Defendant has expressed a “willingness to stipulate to a continuance of the trial date, if necessary” and will therefore, not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment.”  (Mot. pp. 3, 7.)

In his Opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not complied with the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 – “there is no indication of what is being deleted from the original pleading.”  (Oppos. p. 2.)  The proposed amended pleading is not included, and the proposed amendments are difficult to compare to the original form complaint.  (Ibid. at p. 3.)  Defendant also states that Plaintiff has failed to explain why the amendment is necessary and proper or what facts were discovered to give rise to the necessity of the amendment.  (Ibid. at p. 4.)  Plaintiff only states that she believes defense counsel is confused.  (Ibid.)  Defendant states that he “has not agreed to a further continuance” and believes that continuance and reclassification of the matter “would be extremely prejudicial at this point so close to trial as defendant will not have sufficient time to prepare, especially given how reluctant plaintiff is to participate in discovery appropriately.”  (Ibid. at p. 3; Kim Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 in demonstrating the necessity for filing the amended complaint so close to trial, set for October 3, 2022.  Plaintiff does not present any facts that were recently discovered that would necessitate the amendment or provide any reasons as to why this Motion was filed this close to the trial, given that Plaintiff initially attempted to file an amended complaint on January 7, 2021.  The Court also finds that Defendant has demonstrated that it would be prejudiced if the proposed amendments was permitted because he would not have sufficient time to prepare for trial and would not agree to a continuance.

Given that Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of the California Rules of Court and because Defendant would be prejudiced by an amendment to the complaint, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

B.    Reclassification

Code of Civil Procedure § 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(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 to motion to strike.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(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(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 Appeal 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.”  (Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th 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.)

Plaintiff seeks to reclassify the matter from a limited to an unlimited civil case “because the amount sought for damages exceeds limited jurisdiction” and “Plaintiff filed the case in limited jurisdiction by accident.”  (Mot. p. 7.)

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request on the grounds that the proposed amendments do not plead any facts that would justify reclassification of the case as an unlimited civil case.  (Oppos. pp. 2, 4-5.)  Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not plead any new facts that demonstrate that the case should be reclassified as unlimited.  Plaintiff has also not shown good cause for reclassification and “does not now offer any new information or proof that this case was classified incorrectly.”  (Ibid. at p. 5.)

The instant Motion was made after the time allowed for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings.  In order to reclassify the matter, Plaintiff would have to show that (1) the case was incorrectly classified or (2) good cause existed for not seeking reclassification earlier.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(b).)  The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet either of these requirements.  For this reason, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reclassification.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED.  Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s Motion to Reclassify Complaint is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.