Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STCP03729, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP03729     Hearing Date: May 8, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO RECLASSIFY AS AN UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ACTION

MOVING PARTY:   Respondent County of Los Angeles

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Respondent County of Los Angeles’ Motion to Reclassify is DENIED for failure to show good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. On the Court’s own motion, the action is reclassified as an unlimited civil case because this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the underlying Petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 86. Petitioner Gabriella B. Plattner is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within ten (10) days of notice of this order.  

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:          None filed as of May 2, 2023                            [   ] Late                      [ X ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of May 2, 2023                            [   ] Late                      [ X ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On November 12, 2021, Petitioner Gabriella B. Plattner (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for refund of property taxes against Respondent County of Los Angeles (“Respondent”). Petitioner challenges the Los Angeles County Assessor’s escape assessment determination and the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board’s decision denying Petitioner’s claim for tax refund. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 7.) Respondent filed its Answer on December 10, 2021.

On February 14, 2023, Respondent filed the instant Motion to Reclassify Case as an Unlimited Jurisdiction Action (the “Motion”).

No opposition to the Motion has been filed.  

II.              Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 403.040 allows a defendant to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) If the motion is made after the time for the defendant to respond to the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc.,  § 403.040, subd. (b).) Nevertheless, the court may reclassify the case at any time. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).)

III.            Discussion

Here, because Respondent has filed an Answer to the Petitioner, Respondent must show not only that the matter was incorrectly classified, but also that good cause exists for failing to reclassify the matter earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).) In this regard, Respondent argues that, because the underlying Petition challenges a property tax assessment, this action has been improperly classified as a limited civil case under Code of Civil Procedure § 86, subdivision (a)(1), which expressly excludes cases contesting the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll, or municipal fine. (Motion at pp. 3-4.) However, Respondent’s motion notably excludes an explanation why it did not seek reclassification sooner. Respondent was aware of the contents of the Petition when it filed its answer on December 10, 2021, but it inexplicitly waited over a year to seek the instant relief. For this reason, the Motion lacks merit.

Nevertheless, Code of Civil Procedure § 86 clearly establishes the jurisdictional limits for a court of limited jurisdiction. Even though the amount in controversy here may equate to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less, it is without dispute that the Petition involves the legality of the property tax assessment levied against the Petitioner. (See Compl. ¶¶ 4, 7.) Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the underlying Petition. Therefore, on its own motion, the Court reclassifies this action as an unlimited jurisdiction action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).)

            Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED because it does not adhere to the requirements set forth pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 403.040, subdivision (b). Nevertheless, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 86 and 403.040, subdivision (a), the Court finds that this case is incorrectly classified as a limited jurisdiction action. Accordingly, on its own motion, the Court reclassifies this action as an unlimited jurisdiction action.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent County of Los Angeles’ Motion to Reclassify is DENIED for failure to show good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.

On the Court’s own motion, the action is reclassified as an unlimited civil case because this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the underlying Petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 86. Petitioner Gabriella B. Plattner is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within ten (10) days of notice of this order.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.