Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 22STLC03811, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC03811, Date: 2024-05-02 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: 22STLC03811 Hearing Date: May 2, 2024 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Thursday, May 2, 2024

Case Name: PHILLIP A NEWMAN v. CUSTOM CREATION; LEVI SMITH; and DOES 1 to 50

Case No.: 22STLC03811

Motion: Motion for Reclassification of Action from Limited to Unlimited Jurisdiction Court

Moving Party: Plaintiff Phillip A. Newman

Responding Party: None

Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Phillip A Newman’s Motion for Reclassification of Action from Limited to Unlimited is GRANTED.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 403.010 through 403.090, the entire action is ordered reclassified as a civil unlimited jurisdiction case.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fees within 20-days from this Court’s Ruling

BACKGROUND

On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff Phillip A Newman (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Custom Creation (an unknown entity), Levi Smith, and Does 1 to 50, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of written contract, (2) negligence, (3) violation of Business and Professions Code section 7150, et seq., (4) conversion, and (5) fraud.

The Complaint alleges the following. In or about June 2021, Plaintiff and the defendants entered into a written contract for kitchen cabinetry manufacturing, installation, and design. (Compl., ¶ 6.) At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Levi Smith represented that he was duly licensed to do the work, but that representation was false. (Compl., ¶ 7.) In addition, the project was supposed to take 8 to 10 weeks (i.e., end by September or October 2021). (Compl., ¶ 8.) Instead, no work was performed even though Plaintiff had paid a deposit of $16,000. (Compl., ¶¶ 6, 9.) Moreover, the defendants stopped communicating with Plaintiff and refused to return the money paid. (Compl., ¶ 10.)

On September 6, 2022, default was entered against Defendants Levi Smith and Custom Creation.

On December 4, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application for default judgment because the amount Plaintiff requested exceeded the Court’s jurisdiction.

On February 21, 2024, the Court held a hearing on an Order to Show Cause Re: Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment. At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel advised the Court that Plaintiff would file a noticed motion to reclassify this action from the limited to unlimited jurisdiction court.

On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reclassify.

As of April 30, 2024, no opposition to the motion has been filed.

MOVING PARTY’S POSITION

This case should be reclassified from a limited to unlimited civil case because the amount in controversy exceeds $35,000. Specifically, Plaintiff suffered $16,000 due to conversion, $10,000 due to delays in completion of the contract, and $9,639 replacement costs for the installation of the kitchen cabinets. Those damages exceed $35,000.

OPPOSITION

None.

REPLY

None.

ANALYSIS

I. MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE TO UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

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 [now $35,000 due to change in law].” Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 274–275 (“Ytuarte”).

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 [$35,000]; (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; Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a).

“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, 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 [$35,000] 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, 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 [$35,000].” Id. at p. 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. “Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the timely

completion and installation of kitchen cabinetry. Pursuant to the contract, Plaintiff made deposit for 50% of the listed contract price. Plaintiff continued to perform their covenants as specified in the contract. However, Defendant failed to perform ant of their covenants under contract. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered $16,000 due to conversion, $10,000 due to delays in completion of the contract, and $9,639 replacement costs for the installation of the kitchen cabinets. This total exceeds $35,000.” Motion, Declaration of Joseph W. Kellener, ¶ 3.

Based on Plaintiff’s unopposed motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s damages may exceed this Court’s jurisdictional amount of $35,000.

Accordingly, the request to reclassify this case as unlimited is granted.

II. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Phillip A Newman’s Motion for Reclassification of Action from Limited to Unlimited is GRANTED.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 403.010 through 403.090, the entire action is ordered reclassified as a civil unlimited jurisdiction case.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fees within 20-days from this Court’s Ruling.

[NOTE: Today's Conference Re: Filing Status of Motion to Transfer is taken off calendar, and Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment is hereby discharged.]

Moving party to give notice.