Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC06066, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC06066     Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO RECLASSIFY AS UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, LADWP

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion to Reclassify from Limited to Unlimited Jurisdiction filed by Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the LADWP, is GRANTED.

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:          None filed as of May 10, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of May 10, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against Jeremy Americo Lopez (“Defendant”) for property damage.

On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify from Limited to Unlimited Jurisdiction (“Motion”).

No opposition has been filed, as Defendant has not been served.

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. pp. 1-2.)

The instant case pertains to an incident that allegedly occurred on September 17, 2019, whereby a vehicle driven by Defendant collided with a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“LADWP”) power pole.  (Solomon Decl. ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff filed the case on September 19, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶ 3.)  The case was filed as a limited civil case based on the damages estimated by the LADWP’s claims department, assessed to be less than $25,000.  (Ibid.)  On October 12, 2022, an invoice was generated demonstrating damages in the amount of $76,428.84.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4, Ex. A.)

Plaintiff argues that it mistakenly filed the case in limited jurisdiction as it did not have the invoice with the accurate estimate prior to the filing of the Complaint.  (Mot. p. 4.)  Moreover, Defendant has not been served with the summons and complaint and reclassification would be “in the interest of justice and fairness.”  (Ibid. at p. 3.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of showing good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.  Furthermore, Plaintiff has produced evidence demonstrating that there is a possibility that damages 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 from Limited to Unlimited Jurisdiction filed by Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the LADWP, is GRANTED.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 403.010 through 403.090, the entire action is ordered reclassified as civil unlimited jurisdiction case. Reclassification fee must be paid by Plaintiff within 20 days of this order.

Any and all future hearing dates set in this department are advanced to this date and vacated.

The case is referred to the reclassification clerk at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for review and reassignment.