Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 21STLC05860, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
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. 

Case Number: 21STLC05860    Hearing Date: November 14, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Case Name:                             JOE VALDEZ v. DOMINIC VALENTYN and DOES 1 to 10

Case No.:                                21STLC005860

Motion:                                   Motion for Order Reclassifying Case to Unlimited Jurisdiction

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Joe Valdez

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Plaintiff Joe Valdez’s Motion for Order Reclassifying Case to Unlimited Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fees within 10-days of the date of this Court's Order.  

BACKGROUND

            On August 10, 2021, Plaintiff Joe Valdez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Dominic Valentyn (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle.

The Complaint only alleges that on August 10, 2019, on Pacific Coast Highway in Los Angeles, California, the defendants were negligent in their operation, ownership, and entrustment of their vehicle, and caused Plaintiff’s injuries. (Attachment to Complaint, One Cause of Action-Motor Vehicle, p. 1.)

On March 23, 2023, Defendant filed his Answer.

On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking an order reclassifying this case from limited to unlimited jurisdiction.

A non-jury trial is scheduled for May 20, 2024.

As of November 8, 2023, no opposition or reply has been filed.

MOVING PARTY’S POSITION

            The Court should reclassify this case for the following reasons. In this action, Plaintiff alleges that he was hit by Defendant, who was driving at an unsafe speed and failed to stop behind Plaintiff as Plaintiff was slowing down due to the traffic light turning red. The collision caused Plaintiff to skid as the brakes on his motorcycle locked up. Immediately after the collision, police arrived at the scene and noted that Plaintiff suffered from pain in his left knee, back, and neck. Plaintiff’s medical expenses so far exceed $10,500. Plaintiff also seeks general damages, including ongoing pain in his back, neck, and hips, among other things. Plaintiff has been in pain for over four years. Therefore, there is a strong likelihood that the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.

OPPOSITION

            None.

REPLY

            None.

ANALYSIS

I.          MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED

A.        Legal Standard

“The designation of a case as either a limited or an unlimited action has significant implications because the available relief and applicable procedures differ as to each. Most significantly, if a case is designated as a limited civil case, the court has no authority (i.e., jurisdiction) to award a judgment in excess of $25,000.”  (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 274–275. )

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 85, “a proceeding may not be treated as a limited civil action unless all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000; (b) the relief sought is a type that may be granted in a limited civil case; and (c) the relief sought is exclusively of a type described in the statutes, including section 86, that classify an action as a limited civil case or that provide the action is within the jurisdiction of a court presiding over limited civil cases.”  (Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 275.)

“Whether an action qualifies as a limited or unlimited civil action is determined initially from the prayer or demand for relief in the plaintiff's complaint.”  (Ytuarte v. Superior Court, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 274.)  “If, however, a matter has been designated as an unlimited action, and yet the amount of controversy is $25,000 or less, the statutory scheme authorizes ‘reclassification’ of the case as a ‘limited’ action and transfer of the matter to a superior court presiding over such actions.  ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 403.040, subd. (a).).”  (Ibid.)

According to the California Supreme Court, “a matter may be reclassified as a limited civil action ‘when (i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (ii) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court's jurisdictional amount ….’”  (Ytuarte v. Superior Court, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 276, citing Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 279.)  In other words, a superior court cannot reclassify a case “as limited (and thus keep the matter in the unlimited civil court) unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000.”  (Id. at 277.)  That “standard of ‘legal certainty’ is not met when it appears a verdict within the unlimited court's jurisdiction is ‘possible.’”  (Ibid.)

B.        Discussion

            Plaintiff’s counsel attests to the following facts in support of the instant motion to reclassify this case. “Upon review of Plaintiff’s medical records, prospective future treatment, general damages and medical bills, … this matter was incorrectly classified in limited jurisdiction, as Plaintiff’s damages exceed the $25,000 maximum jurisdiction of this Court.” (Motion, declaration of Shawn S. Hakakian (“Hakakian Decl.”), ¶ 7.) To date, Plaintiff’s medical bills are more than $10,500, and, at trial, Plaintiff will seek general damages for pain and suffering, among other things. (Hakakian Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.) Plaintiff is willing to provide copies of his medical bills of his treatment for defense counsel and the Court’s review. (Hakakian Decl., ¶ 5.) On August 29, 2023, Defendant’s newly assigned handling attorney informed Plaintiff’s counsel through email that defense counsel has “no opposition” to Plaintiff seeking reclassification of the case. (Hakakian Decl., ¶ 4; Exhibit B – a copy of the email, p. 1, top of the page.)

            In light of Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration and Defendant’s failure to file any opposition, the Court finds that it cannot be said with legal certainty that Plaintiff’s damages will necessarily be less than $25,000.

Therefore, the Court finds it proper to grant the request to reclassify this case as unlimited.

II.        CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff Joe Valdez’s Motion for Order Reclassifying Case to Unlimited Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fees within 10-days of the date of this Court's Order. 


Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.