Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC08134, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.  **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 21STLC08134     Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO RECLASSIFY AS UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Kayla Amber Owens

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant Weingart Center Association

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:          Filed on March 15, 2023.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     Filed on March 20, 2023.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] 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 (“Weingart”) 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”).

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.

On February 27, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify to March 28, 2023, and vacated the Non-Jury Trial scheduled for May 12, 2023.  (2-27-23 Minute Order.)  The Court also scheduled a status conference for March 28, 2023.  (Ibid.)

On March 15, Defendant Weingart filed an Opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”).  Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Opposition (“Reply”) on March 20, 2023.

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.)

            Defendant Weingart opposes the Motion or in the alternative, requests that the Court continue the hearing for 60 days.  (Mot. p. 2.)  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion has not been filed in a timely manner and there is no justification for the delay.  (Ibid.)  The documents submitted in support of the Motion are unverified, were not produced through discovery, and contradict Plaintiff’s discovery responses.  (Ibid.)  Furthermore, Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and, thus, Defendant Weingart has been unable to dispose.  (Ibid.)

            Specifically, Defendant argues that in Plaintiff’s verified supplemental responses to discovery requests, provided after the Court compelled Plaintiff to respond, “Plaintiff disclosed the [sic] that her total medical specials amount to $11,506.82” and she was not advised of the need for future medical services by her provider.  (Mot. p. 4; Angelo Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  Defendant states that two years after the incident in question, Plaintiff “now contends that she has been advised of the possible need for future surgery after consulting with a new orthopedic surgeon.”  (Mot. p. 4.)  However, the records attached to support Plaintiff’s arguments were never submitted to Defendant Weingart through discovery and “have yet to be verified through subpoena or Plaintiff’s deposition.”  (Ibid.)  Defendant questions the authenticity of these records as they were produced after Defendant Chrysalis appeared in the instant case.  (Ibid.)  Given Plaintiff’s alleged incarceration, Defendant is limited in its ability to depose Plaintiff or verify the authenticity of these claims.  (Ibid.; Angelo Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.)  Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel has not provided any justification for failing to file a timely motion to reclassify.  (Mot. p. 6.)  Finally, if the matter is reclassified, Defendant will suffer “irreparable harm due to the further delay of resolving this matter.”  (Ibid.)

            In her Reply, Plaintiff states that “Defendant does not contest that the damages will likely result in a verdict of above $25,000,” Defendant only argues that this information was not revealed through the discovery process, conflicts with Plaintiff’s discovery responses, and “questions Plaintiff’s participation because she is incarcerated.”  (Reply p. 1.)  None of these arguments defeat the Motion as they are “irrelevant to the issue of reclassification.”  (Ibid. at pp. 2-3.)  Plaintiff has submitted evidence and demonstrated that the extent and nature of Plaintiff’s injuries support a likely award of damages above $25,000.  (Ibid. at p. 2.)  Plaintiff reiterates that she has shown good cause for not filing the Motion earlier.  (Ibid. at pp. 2-4.)

Defendant opposes the Motion because the information was not produced during the discovery process and contradicts Plaintiff’s discovery responses, served in July 2022.  However, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 106.5, which requests information about charges by healthcare providers related to the incident, includes the following statement: “Investigation and discovery continues and Plaintiff reserved the right to alter, amend or modify this response.”  (Oppos. - Angelo Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  Furthermore, the letter from the orthopedic surgeon and the estimate of surgical charges are dated November 9 and 18, 2022, respectively.  (Mot. – Devereux Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. A-B.)  Moreover, the evidence submitted in support of the Motion is authenticated through Plaintiff’s counsel’s sworn declaration.

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 GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify the instant action to 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.