Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC08134, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08134    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO RECLASSIFY AS UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Kayla Amber Owens

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion to Reclassify action as an unlimited jurisdiction case filed by Plaintiff Kayla Amber Owens is GRANTED.

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 February 23, 2023.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of February 23, 2023.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff Kayla Amber Owens (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Winegart Center Association (“Defendant”) for general negligence and premises liability arising out of an alleged slip and fall at Defendant’s facility.  On January 28, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer indicating that its correct name is Weingart Center Association, and denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On June 8, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Production of Documents (Set One).  (6-8-22 Minute Order.)

On August 8, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint against The Chrysalis Center (“Chrysalis”) and deemed the Cross-Complaint, filed on May 10, 2022, accepted.  (8-8-22 Minute Order.)  On October 4, 2022, Cross-Defendant Chrysalis filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

            On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify (“Motion”).  No opposition has been filed.

On the following day, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, adding The Chrysalis Center as Defendant Doe 1.  (11-22-22 Amendment.)

            On January 31, 2023, The Chrysalis Center filed an Answer to the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

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 moves for an order reclassifying the instant action from limited to unlimited jurisdiction.  (Mot. p. 1.)

Plaintiff argues that “good cause” can be shown because a new associate was handling the case and during settlement negotiations “realized that the matter had been incorrectly filed in the limited jurisdiction.”  (Ibid.; Devereux Decl. ¶ 3.)  Furthermore, “Plaintiff has just been informed of the need for surgery” and “[t]he nature of the injuries and cost of the same squarely place this case above the jurisdiction of the limited court.”  (Mot. p. 9.)  Plaintiff states that “with special damages of $13,714.00 and a future medical estimate of $ [sic] $24,000 to $26,000.00 it cannot possibly be argued that there is a legal certainty that Plaintiff will not recover more than $25,000. Therefore, the case is incorrectly classified as a limited civil case.”  (Ibid. at p. 9; Devereux Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)  Plaintiff has attached a surgeon’s medical report from November 9, 2022, indicating that she will need surgery due to her injuries, as well as estimates for surgery and post-surgical care that support her argument for reclassification.  (Devereux Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. A-B.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden of showing good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.  Furthermore, Plaintiff has produced evidence demonstrating that there is a possibility that her medical costs will exceed $25,000.00.

Accordingly, the Court grant’s Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify the instant action unlimited jurisdiction.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

The Motion to Reclassify action as an unlimited jurisdiction case filed by Plaintiff Kayla Amber Owens is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.