Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC03273, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC03273    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 25

Tentative Ruling

Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong

Department 25

Confidential – Court-Privileged Document

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Case Name:                             ARMEN BARSEGHYAN v. ANAHID VARTANYAN; and DOES 1 TO 25 inclusive

Case No.:                                23STLC03273

Motion:                                   Motion to Reclassify Case as an Unlimited Jurisdiction Action

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Armen Barseghyan

Responding Party:                   Defendant Anahid Vartanyan

Notice:                                    OK

Recommended Ruling:           Plaintiff Armen Barseghyan’s Motion to Reclassify Case is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within twenty (20) days service of this 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:          Filed as of January 31, 2024                           [   ] Late          [   ] None 

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

BACKGROUND

On May 17, 2023, Armen Barseghyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a cause of action against Anahid Vartanyan (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence seeking compensatory damages according to proof.

On June 21, 2023, Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint.

On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify Case as an Unlimited Jurisdiction Action. Defendant files in opposition. Plaintiff does not file in reply.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff prays for an order from the Court reclassifying Case No. 23STLC03273 from a limited civil jurisdiction to unlimited civil jurisdiction under CCP § 403.040(b). Plaintiff argues that the instant case was improperly classified because Plaintiff’s counsel mistakenly filed the action as a limited case when the severity and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries are such that it should be classified as an unlimited civil case.

OPPOSITION

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify should be denied because the Complaint does not seek relief of more than $35,000.00. Defendant contends that reclassification is not mandatory as the case is correctly classified as a limited civil case. Defendant additionally argues that Plaintiff does not demonstrate good cause for his motion to reclassify as Plaintiff’s resumption of medical treatment would not likely yield a verdict over 35,000.00.

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 arose from a motor vehicle accident involving the parties on September 26, 2022, at North Hollywood Way and West Victory Blvd, Burbank, CA 91505. (Compl. p. 4.) The case was filed as a limited civil case based on damages stemming from Plaintiff’s medical expenses. Plaintiff’s counsel states that at the time of filing, Plaintiff had only received chiropractic treatment, orthopedic treatment, and diagnostic imaging of his lumbar spine, amounting to medical bills totaling $8,460.00. (Meghry S. Chopurian Decl. ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Counsel further declares that Plaintiff received an epidural injection to his lumbar spine on October 04, 2023, and his medical bills are now more than $19,050.00. (Id. ¶ 5; Exh. B.) Counsel believes the Motion is necessary because she believes a jury will render a verdict exceeding $25,000 even before factoring in general damages. (Id. ¶ 8.)

            Plaintiff argues that due to his unforeseen flare-ups and the need for further medical attention, which were not previously accounted for, the amount in controversy in this case has substantially increased. Plaintiff notes that when considering Plaintiff’s general damages, it is highly likely that the trial will result in a verdict higher than $25,000.00.

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify should be denied because the Complaint does not seek relief of more than $35,000.00. Defendant contends that reclassification is not mandatory as the case is correctly classified as a limited civil case. Defendant additionally argues that Plaintiff does not demonstrate good cause for his motion to reclassify as Plaintiff’s resumption of medical treatment would not likely yield a verdict over 35,000.00. Defendant concedes that while the Walker test continues to govern the substantive and procedural law governing reclassification, recent changes to the jurisdictional amount under CCP § 85(a) support the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion.

            The Court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden of showing good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. Furthermore, Plaintiff has produced evidence demonstrating that there is a possibility that his medical costs will exceed $25,000.00 and the new jurisdictional amount of $35,000.00. Here, Plaintiff provides evidence that his special damages incurred through medical treatment has reached $19,050.00. Given the amount of medical expenses and the extent of treatment for Plaintiff’s injury, it is possible that the trier of fact will award pain and suffering damages that will result in Plaintiff’s total amount of damages exceeding the jurisdictional limit of this Court.  

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify the instant action to unlimited jurisdiction.

III.       Conclusion

            Plaintiff Armen Barseghyan’s Motion to Reclassify Case to an Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within twenty (20) days service of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.