Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC05800, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC05800 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Monday, April 15, 2024
Case Name: JORDAN
BROWN v. KYLEE THURMAN
Case No.: 22STLC05800
Motion: Motion for Reclassification from the Limited Civil Jurisdiction to the
Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction Court (Walter Motion)
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Jordan Brown
Responding Party: Defendant Kylee Thurman
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Jordan Brown’s
Motion for Reclassification from the Limited Civil to the Unlimited Civil
Jurisdiction is DENIED.
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 as of April 02, 2024 [ ] Late [ ] None
REPLY: Filed late as of April 08, 2024 [ ] Late [ ] None
BACKGROUND
On September 06, 2022, Jordan Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed three causes of
action against Defendant Kylee Thurman (“Defendant”) for 1) breach of contract,
common counts 2) conversion and 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendant filed a General Denial to the Complaint on October 07,
2022.
On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further
Production Responsive to Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant
and Request for Production of Documents for Deposition and Request for Monetary
Sanctions. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion noting that among other issues,
Plaintiff’s request exceeded the number of discovery requests that can be made
in a limited civil matter.
On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) for 1) breach of contract, common counts 2) conversion and 3)
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendant filed a General Denial to the FAC on February 09, 2024.
On March 08, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Reclassification. Defendant files in opposition. Plaintiff files in reply.
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Plaintiff prays
for an order from the Court reclassifying Case No. 22STLC05800 from a limited civil jurisdiction to an unlimited
civil jurisdiction case under CCP § 403.040(b). Plaintiff argues that the
instant case should now be classified as unlimited because the expert report
provided by Dr. Serina Hoover presents new clear and convincing evidence that
Defendant’s conduct manifested substantial emotion distress to Plaintiff thus
increasing the emotional distress damages in excess of $35,000. Plaintiff
further argues that he has good cause for not seeking the reclassification
sooner because prior to retaining Dr. Hoover, Plaintiff
did not have as clear, persuasive, and actionable evidentiary basis to pray for
significant emotional distress damages.
OPPOSITION
In
opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify should be
denied because Plaintiff has no admissible evidence that he misclassified this
case in either his initial or first amended complaint. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff does
not show good cause for waiting to file her motion to reclassify until after
answering ready for trial on March 5, 2024.
REPLY
In reply,
Plaintiff points out that Defendant’s express admission that reclassification
would change the landscape of this case supports his position on
reclassification and asserts among other things that Defendant’s vague protest against
the prejudicial effects of a “delay” are unavailing compared against
Plaintiff’s right to Due Process. Plaintiff argues further that Defendant’s
proposal for a shifted evidentiary burden for reclassification is contrary to the
law as held by Walker and Ytuarte.
ANALYSIS
I. Legal
Standard
Defendant’s
Objection 1: Overruled. The evidence is relevant because it tends to prove that, based on
Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s recoverable damages
would be over the jurisdictional limit. There is proper foundation as the
declarant is authenticating the document as the proposed Second Amended
Complaint.
Defendant’s
Objection 2: Sustained under
Evi. Code § 702(a) because the declarant does not have personal knowledge regarding
the statement. Moreover, the declaration states, “I have personal
knowledge of the matters set forth below, and if called upon to testify to
them, I could competently do so, except those matters stated on information
and belief, and as to those matters I am informed and believe them to be true.”
(Disner Decl ¶ 1.) (emphasis added.)
Defendant’s
Objection 3: Sustained under
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2034.260 and 2034.270 because Plaintiff has failed
to timely list expert witness before trial.
Defendant’s
Objection 4: Sustained under
Evid. Code § 801 because Defendant has not been given the same
opportunity to offer a counter expert able to opine that the proper alternative
cause or causes each exists to a reasonable medical probability. Moreover, for
the reason articulated above, Plaintiff has impermissibly provided an expert
report in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2034.270 and 96.
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
civil. (Id.) This high standard is appropriate considering
“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.” (Id.)
Effective January 01, 2024, the jurisdictional limit in a limited
civil jurisdiction case now stands at $35,000.00 per Code of Civil Procedure §
85(a). (Code Civ. Proc. § 85(a).)
III. Discussion
The instant case arises from
an alleged breach of contract between the parties over custody of an emotional
support animal. (First Amend. Compl.) The case was filed as a limited civil
case based on damages stemming from Defendant’s alleged failure to provide
custody. Plaintiff argues that the instant case should be reclassified because the
expert report provided by Dr. Serina Hoover presents new clear and convincing
evidence that Defendant’s conduct manifested substantial emotional distress to
Plaintiff thus increasing the emotional distress damages in excess of $35,000.
(Mot. p. 5.) Plaintiff further argues that he has good cause for not seeking
the reclassification sooner because prior to retaining Dr.
Hoover, “Plaintiff did not have as clear, persuasive, and actionable an
evidentiary basis to pray for significant emotional distress damages, including
notably for future pain and suffering, regarding which a layperson would only
reasonably have been qualified to speculate at trial, absent Dr. Hoover’s
expert assessment.” (Id. p. 5-6.)
Defendant argues in
opposition that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify should be denied because
Plaintiff has no admissible evidence that he misclassified this case in either
his initial or first amended complaint. Defendant
further argues that Plaintiff does not show good cause for waiting to file her
motion to reclassify until after answering ready for trial on March 5, 2024,
noting that Plaintiff’s counsel admits having considered trying to reclassify
the case before filing the FAC on January 11, 2024. (Pisner Decl. ¶ 4).
The Court
finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a possibility that his
claimed damages will exceed $35,000.00. Here, given that the FAC prays for
punitive damages, it is possible that
the trier of fact will award damages that will result in Plaintiff’s total
amount of damages exceeding the jurisdictional limit of this Court.
However, the Court is not convinced that
Plaintiff meets his burden of showing good cause for not seeking
reclassification earlier. Here, Plaintiff argues in his moving papers that he
did not have clear persuasive evidence to pray for significant emotional
distress damages until Dr. Hoover presented her findings on February 23, 2024.
(Hoover Decl. ¶ 2; Exh A.) Plaintiff’s counsel swears that he was not aware of
“solid and compelling grounds to move to reclassify in pursuit of
greater emotional distress damages until Dr. Hoover’s expert report.” (Disner
Decl. ¶ 4.)
Yet, when presented with such evidence, Plaintiff did not file the instant
motion to be heard until the day before the parties are set to go to trial. This
is especially concerning considering the Court previously found that,
Plaintiff has identified no
circumstances which were not previously known that justify continuance on an
ex-parte basis. Desiring to move to reclassify a case as unlimited civil or
further amend a complaint at this late stage does not present exigent
circumstances justifying ex-parte relief.
(02/29/2024 Minute Order.) While the Court’s order dealt
with the issue of reclassification on an ex-parte basis, the Court points out
that Plaintiff did not present such evidence then or at other opportunities
besides the instant motion. Moreover, by Plaintiff’s counsel’s own admission, counsel previously
considered reclassification but failed to do so in hopes of prevailing on her
discovery motion and does not provide the Court with an explanation as to why the
instant motion was brought on the eve of trial. Based on the Court’s prior
order, Plaintiff announced ready for trial on March 5, 2024. (03/05/2024 Minute
Order.) As such, it seems Plaintiff was aware of evidence supporting
a motion to reclassify the action as early as February 23, 2024, but chose not
to move with any expediency to bring the instant motion. The Court finds
that Plaintiff fails to show good cause as to the significant delay in time
that would sufficiently carry his burden.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reclassification of the instant action to an unlimited jurisdiction is DENIED.
IV. Conclusion
Plaintiff Jordan Brown’s Motion for
Reclassification from the Limited Civil Jurisdiction to the Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction
Court is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.