Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC02813, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC02813    Hearing Date: March 12, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Case Name:                             KARLA ELIZABETH MARAVILLA ALBERTO v. JOSE ANTONIO MONTOYA

Case No.:                                23STLC02813

Motion:                                   Motion for Reclassification from Limited to Unlimited Jurisdiction (CCP 403.020)

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff In Pro Per Karla Elizabeth Maravilla Alberto

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Karla Elizabeth Maravilla Alberto’s Motion for Reclassification is GRANTED.

The Court orders this action reclassified from the Limited Jurisdiction to the Unlimited Jurisdiction Court, upon payment of the appropriate reclassification fees.

 Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within twenty (20) days service of this Court’s order.

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:          None filed as of February 28, 2024                [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 05, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On April 27, 2023, Karla Elizabeth Maravilla Alberto (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Jose Antonio Montoya (“Defendant”) for the partition of the real property located at 17316 Sweetaire Avenue, Lancaster California 93535.   

On October 30, 2023, default was entered against the Defendant.

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reclassification.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff prays for an order from the Court reclassifying Case No. 23STLC02813 from a limited civil jurisdiction to an unlimited civil jurisdiction case under CCP § 403.020. Plaintiff argues that the instant case should now be classified as unlimited because Plaintiff’s complaint for partition establishes that she can recover more than $35,000.00 based on the proceeds of the sale of the property. Plaintiff further argues that she has good cause for not seeking the reclassification sooner because when she first initiated the instant action the value of the property relative to the loan amount owed led Plaintiff to believe the matter qualified as a limited jurisdiction.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

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 is brought for the partition of the real property located at 17316 Sweetaire Avenue, Lancaster California 93535. Plaintiff and Defendant both own an undivided equal share or interest as joint tenants.  

Plaintiff argues that the instant case should now be classified as unlimited because Plaintiff’s complaint for partition establishes that she can recover more than $35,000.00 based on the proceeds of the sale of the property. Plaintiff further argues that she has good cause for not seeking the reclassification sooner because when she first initiated the instant action the value of the property relative to the loan amount owed led Plaintiff to believe the matter qualified as limited jurisdiction.

Plaintiff provides the Court with her own sworn declaration in which she states that she filed the action as a limited civil matter, not realizing that the matter needed to be an unlimited matter. (Kara Elizabeth Maravilla Alberto Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff avers that based on what was owed and the value of the house in April 2023, she did not believe that the action qualified as an unlimited matter. (Id. ¶ 6.) When Plaintiff moved for default judgment, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s request based on the proposed judgment exceeding the jurisdictional limit. (Id. ¶ 5.)

            The Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden of showing good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a possibility that a judgment in her favor will exceed $25,000.00 and the new jurisdictional amount of $35,000.00. Given that the value of the property is $360,000.00, and that Plaintiff is seeking an equal division of the proceeds from the sale of the property it is certain that an award in Plaintiff’s favor would exceed the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reclassification of the instant action to an unlimited jurisdiction is GRANTED.

III.       Conclusion

Plaintiff Karla Elizabeth Maravilla Alberto’s Motion for Reclassification is GRANTED.

The Court orders this action reclassified from the Limited Jurisdiction to the Unlimited Jurisdiction Court, upon payment of the appropriate reclassification fees.

 Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within twenty (20) days service of this Court’s order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.