Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC07980, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07980    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, October 19, 2023

Case Name:                             Glendale Properties, Inc., a California Corporation doing business as Trumark Real Estate Management Services v. Joshua Anderson Richard

Case No.:                                22STLC07980

Motion:                                   Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion)

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Glendale Properties, Inc., a California Corporation doing business as Trumark Real Estate Management Services

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Plaintiff Glendale Properties, Inc., a California Corporation doing business as Trumark Real Estate Management Services’ Motion to Reclassify is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff Glendale Properties, Inc., a California corporation doing business as Trumark Real Estate Management Services (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Joshua Anderson Richard, an individual (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 25, inclusive for reformation of written lease based upon mistake (Civil Code § 3399.)

On June 6, 2023, the Court entered Default on Defendant.

On July 20, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment because Department 25 is a limited jurisdiction court and does not have jurisdiction over actions for Contract Reformation.  The Court instructed Plaintiff that the matter be transferred to a General Jurisdiction Court to have the contract reformed.

On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed this instant motion for reclassification of action. 

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff argues the Court should grant its request to transfer the case to a court with unlimited jurisdiction because it seeks contract reformation as a form of relief.  On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s prior attorney, James Bates, incorrectly filed this action for reformation of a lease in a court of limited jurisdiction.  In March 2023, Plaintiff released Mr. Bates and hired the Davidovich Stein Law Group (“DSLG”) to continue prosecuting the case on Plaintiff’s behalf.

Since this court cannot reform a contract, it should reclassify this case as unlimited and transfer it to an appropriate court with jurisdiction.   

OPPOSITION

            No opposition is filed.  

REPLY

            No reply is filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Motion for Reclassification

A.    Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 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, subd. (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, subd. (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.) In Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278, the Court of Appeals 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.” (Id. at 279.) 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.)  

B.     Discussion  

Plaintiff’s initial time for amending its pleadings has passed.  Therefore, Plaintiff must show that the case was incorrectly classified, and that good cause exists for not seeking reclassification earlier.

Here, Plaintiff demonstrates that the case was incorrectly classified by Plaintiff’s previous counsel.  Additionally, Plaintiff demonstrates that good cause exists because a court of limited jurisdiction cannot reform a contract, which is the relief Plaintiff is seeking.   Since Plaintiff does not seek monetary damages but instead seeks reformation of contract as relief, the Court finds that this action is reclassified from limited to unlimited jurisdiction.    

III.       Conclusion

Plaintiff Glendale Properties, Inc., a California Corporation doing business as Trumark Real Estate Management Services’ Motion to Reclassify is GRANTED. 

  THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR COLLECTION OF FEES AND REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT.

PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. 

 Moving party is ordered to give notice.