Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC03384, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC03384    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO RECLASSIFY UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Irma Agustin

RESP. PARTY:         Defendants Fenix Merchandise U.S.A., Inc. and Alejandra Fierro

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY TO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Irma Agustin’s Motion to Reclassify Case to Unlimited Jurisdiction (incorrectly labeled Motion to Transfer) is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[ X ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 NONE

[ X ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                     NONE

[ X ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     NONE

OPPOSITION:          Filed on September 30, 2022.                           [X] Late                       [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of October 11, 2022.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On April 29, 2021, Plaintiff Irma Agustin (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Fenix Merchandise U.S.A., Inc. (“Fenix Merchandise”) and Alejandra Fierro (“Fierro”), (collectively, “Defendants”) for general negligence and premises liability.

            On October 12, 2021, Defendants filed a joint Answer.

            On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify Case to Unlimited Jurisdiction (“Motion”) (incorrectly labeled “Motion to Transfer”).  Defendants filed a joint Opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”) on September 30, 2022.  No reply has been filed.

            On August 26, 2022, upon stipulation filed by the parties, the Court continued the trial date from October 27, 2022, to February 6, 2023.  (8-26-22 Stipulation.)  All associated pre-trial dates were also continued.  (Ibid.)

II.              Legal Standard

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.)

III.            Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to reclassify this action as an unlimited civil action on the ground that when the action was filed, “plaintiff' s counsel did not have a true understanding and/or full assessment of the plaintiff' s injuries.”  (Mot. pp. 1-2.)  Counsel became aware of the extent and seriousness of the injuries and the fact that Plaintiff may require surgery when preparing for Plaintiff’s deposition on July 15, 2022.  (Ibid.)

The personal injury action arose when, on November 8, 2020, a portable chain-link fence was allegedly blown over and fell on top of Plaintiff at a Swap Meet “owned, operated and controlled by the defendants herein.”  (Vargas Decl. p. 1.)  Plaintiff’s counsel states that at the time the Complaint was filed on April 29, 2021, Plaintiff’s doctor who was treating injuries resulting from the incident had not submitted final reports of injuries and the “full nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages” had not been properly assessed.  (Ibid.)  At the time, the medical bills “were not anticipated to be more than $10,000.00 for a soft tissue injury case.”  (Ibid.)  A few days before Plaintiff’s deposition of July 15, 2022, Counsel reviewed an MRI report of Plaintiff’s right shoulder and discovered that Plaintiff continued to have pain and discomfort in this shoulder.  (Ibid. at pp. 1-2.)  Plaintiff has an appointment scheduled with an orthopedic surgeon to determine the need for surgery.  (Ibid. at p. 2.)  In the meantime, she is unable to continue working as a vendor.  (Ibid.)  Counsel declares that the medical bills and lost earnings “are anticipated to be beyond the court's limited jurisdiction.”  (Ibid.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed a Proof of Service demonstrating that Defendants were properly served with the moving papers.

On September 30, 2022, Defendants filed a late joint Opposition to the Motion.  The Court considers the Opposition because Plaintiff did not file proof that Defendants were served with the Notice and Motion.

Defendants oppose the Motion because Plaintiff “knew or should have known” the extent of the injuries based on the MRI report, dated December 28, 2020.  (Oppos. pp. 1-2; Chu Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  Despite this knowledge, Plaintiff’s counsel admits that he believed medical bills would not amount to more than $10,000.  (Ibid. at p. 2.)  Thus, the case was not incorrectly classified.  (Ibid. at p. 3.)

Furthermore, a report from a chiropractor that Defendants received through discovery, dated April 14, 2021, relies on the MRI report on making a diagnosis.  (Ibid. at p. 3; Chu Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.)  Thus, Plaintiff and Counsel “knew or should have known about the tendon tear” indicated in the MRI report before filing the Complaint in limited jurisdiction.  (Ibid. at p. 3.)  Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is good cause in not seeking reclassification earlier.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause in not seeking reclassification earlier.  The MRI report and chiropractor’s report obtained by Defendants through discovery show that Plaintiff’s right shoulder injury was apparent prior to the initiation of the instant lawsuit.  Furthermore, Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00.  (Ibid.)  Finally, Plaintiff has not submitted proof that Defendants were properly served with the moving papers.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff Irma Agustin’s Motion to Reclassify Case to Unlimited Jurisdiction (incorrectly labeled Motion to Transfer) is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.