Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV36188, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV36188, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36188 Hearing Date: February 29, 2024 Dept: 27

Complaint filed: 10/1/2021

Trial date: 6/5/2024

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿

Department 27¿

TENTATIVE RULING

Hearing Date: ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 2/29/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿

Case Name: RAMON VASQUEZ, et al. vs JESSICA PARK

Case No.: 21STCV36188

Motion: MOTION TO RECLASSIFY (WALKER MOTION)

Moving Party: Defendant Jessica Park

Responding Party: Plaintiff Ramon Vasquez and Magaly Vasquez

Notice: Sufficient

Recommended Ruling: Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED

BACKGROUND¿

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiffs Ramon Vasquez and Magaly Vasquez initiated an auto accident claim against Defendant Jessica Park. The answer was filed on April 24, 2023. Defendant now presents this motion to reclassify, asserting that driver Ramon Vasquez lacked insurance at the time of the accident and is consequently subject to Proposition 213, which restricts his ability to recover damages for pain and suffering. Furthermore, Defendant argues that both Ramon Vasquez and Magaly Vasquez have accrued medical expenses significantly below the statutory limit of $25,000.

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).) “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 or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, 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.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “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 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.) (Emphasis added.)¿

Discussion

Defendant demonstrated good cause for the delay in filing the current motion. Specifically, Defendant was only recently able to gain access to Plaintiff's medical expenses through discovery (Declaration of Cindy N. Mader ¶ 12) and did not file the present motion with significant delay.

However, there exists a possibility that Plaintiff's recovery could exceed $25,000. To date, Plaintiff has incurred approximately $12,000 in medical expenses, with a significant portion attributable to Plaintiff Magaly Vasquez. (Opposition at page 4.) Plaintiff has reported ongoing complaints including headaches, dizziness, sleepless nights, neck, and back pain. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff Magaly Vasquez has been recommended for further pain management treatments, indicating the potential for additional special damages in the future. (Id.) Furthermore, Plaintiff Magaly Vasquez may pursue general damages for pain and suffering, typical for plaintiffs undergoing pain management. General damages are typically calculated at two to three times the amount of special damages, raising the possibility that damages could surpass the statutory limit of $25,000. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to reclassify is DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

· If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

· Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

· If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.