Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC02369, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC02369 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Wednesday, March 06, 2024
Case Name: ABIGAIL
MOROCH v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 TO 75 inclusive
Case No.: 23STLC02369
Motion: Motion to Reclassify Case as an Unlimited Jurisdiction Action
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Abigail Moroch
Responding Party: Defendant Westlake Services
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Abigail Moroch’s
Motion to Reclassify Case to an 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 February 22, 2024 [ ] Late [ ] None
REPLY: Filed as of February 28, 2024 [ ] Late [ ] None
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2023, Abigail Moroch(“Plaintiff”) filed a cause of
action against Westlake Services, LLC (“Defendant”) for breach of contract.
On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against
Defendant for 1) breach of contract, 2) violations of the Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act, and 3) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
On June 15, 2023, Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint. On
July 11, 2023, Defendant filed his First Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s FAC.
On December 05, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to
Reclassify Case as an Unlimited Jurisdiction Action. Defendant files in
opposition. Plaintiff files in reply.
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Plaintiff prays
for an order from the Court reclassifying Case No. 23STLC02369 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 new claims raised in the FAC increases Plaintiff’s
recovery above the jurisdictional limit. Plaintiff further argues that she has
good cause for not seeking the reclassification sooner because when she first
initiated the instant action for breach of contract, she was not yet aware of
Defendant’s continued credit reporting or subsequent attempt to collect a debt
they were not owed.
OPPOSITION
In
opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify should be
denied because there is no possibility that Plaintiff’s damages will exceed
$25,000. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s CCRA and Rosenthal claims are
improper because Plaintiff waived those claims under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff does not show
good cause for her delay because, based on her FAC, Plaintiff was already aware
that she was seeking damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages more
than five months before filing the instant motion.
REPLY
In reply,
Plaintiff disputes that the Settlement Agreement bars her from recovering any
damages under the CCRA and the Rosenthal Act. Plaintiff points out that
Defendant has not cited any authority to support its claim that Plaintiff is
limited to breach of contract damages. Finally, Plaintiff reasserts that she
has demonstrated that the possibility of her total damages could exceed the
jurisdictional limit and that she has shown good cause.
ANALYSIS
I. 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).)
II. Discussion
The instant case arises from
an alleged breach of contract claim for the sale and subsequent settlement of a
car. (First Amen. Compl. p. 4.) The case was filed as a limited civil case
based on damages stemming from Defendant’s alleged failure to perform under the
Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff argues that the instant case should be
reclassified because the new claims raised in the FAC raises plaintiff’s recovery
above the jurisdictional limit. (Memo in Support of Mot. p. 3.) Plaintiff
further argues that she has good cause for not seeking the reclassification
sooner because when she first initiated the instant action for breach of
contract, she was not yet aware of Defendant’s continued credit reporting or
subsequent attempt to collect a debt they were not owed. (Id.)
Defendant argues in
opposition that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify should be denied because there
is no possibility that Plaintiff’s damages will exceed $25,000. Defendant
asserts that Plaintiff’s CCRA and Rosenthal claims are improper because
Plaintiff waived those claims under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Defendant further argues that Plaintiff does not show good cause for her delay
because, based on her FAC, Plaintiff was already aware that she was seeking
damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages more than five months
before filing the instant motion.
The Court
finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a possibility that her
claimed damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the new jurisdictional amount of
$35,000.00. Here, given that the FAC prays for relief for pain and suffering
and 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. While
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action may be
barred per the Settlement Agreement, the Court need not reach that issue as it
seeks to address the merits of the complaint rather than the dispositive issue
of whether Plaintiff’s damages theoretically will reach the jurisdictional
limit.
However, the Court is not convinced that
Plaintiff meets her burden of showing good cause for not seeking
reclassification earlier. Here, Plaintiff argues in her moving papers that when
she first initiated this action, she did not know of Defendant’s subsequent
acts that gave rise to the FAC. Yet, Defendant correctly points out that
Plaintiff has not adequately justified the eight-month gap between when the FAC
was filed, which includes the CCRA and Rosenthal Act claims supporting greater
damages, and when Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Plaintiff argues in her
reply brief that she did not move to reclassify the case sooner for two
reasons. First, Plaintiff
thought Defendant would move quickly to resolve the matter. (Reply, p.3) The Court does not
find Plaintiff’s speculation regarding settlement of this matter ‘good cause’
for the excessive delay in seeking to reclassify the matter as unlimited, nor
has Plaintiff provided any authority to support such a rationale. Plaintiff also maintains that the
extent of Plaintiff’s damages which pushed the case over the unlimited
jurisdiction limit were not discovered until later “because Westlake’s
oppressive actions continued long after the filing of the FAC.” (Id.) In support, Plaintiff references the May 8, 2023,
vehicle pick up by Defendant and Defendant’s June 2023 request for information
regarding an identity theft claim. (Id. at p.3-4) Based on this information, Plaintiff was
aware of events which “caused significant confusion, and stress and anxiety” supporting
a motion to reclassify the action as early as a month following the FAC being
filed, and still six months prior to filing this Motion. (Id.) The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to
show good cause as to the significant delay in time that would sufficiently
carry her burden.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reclassify the instant action to unlimited jurisdiction is DENIED.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff Abigail Moroch’s Motion
to Reclassify Case to an Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction is DENIED.