Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC05839 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Shaelyn Dieter’s Motion to Reclassify is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 3, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the continued hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff Shaelyn Dieter (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Conrad Charles Romo (“Defendant”). The action arises out of an alleged August 24, 2019 accident between Plaintiff and Defendant in the County of Los Angeles. (Compl., p 2). Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on September 29, 2021.

Code of Civil Procedure section 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, subd. (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 or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (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, subd. (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 Appeals 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.” (Id. 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 argues reclassification is proper because she miscalculated her damages at less than $25,000 when she filed the case but now calculates damages in excess of $30,000. Plaintiff’s evidence is limited to a declaration from her counsel that states that she now “has calculated the damages to be in excess of $30,000 and now moves to reclassify.” (Mot., Peetris Decl. d¶ 2). Counsel’s declaration merely states “Plaintiff has medical bills in excess of $16,000.” (Id. at ¶ 3).

This is not sufficient. Plaintiff has not submitted any documentary evidence, such as copies of medical bills incurred or other written confirmation demonstrating that she has medical bills in excess of $16,000, nor has she demonstrated a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00. Plaintiff must still present sufficient evidence demonstrating the possibility exists. (Ytuarte v. Superior Court, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th 279.)

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Shaelyn Dieter’s Motion to Reclassify is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 3, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the continued hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.