Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV30102, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30102    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date:           4/15/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name:       22STCV30102 YU XIA ZOU vs JULIO MORENO, JR.

Motion:                    MOTION TO RECLASSIFY TO LIMITED JURISDICTION

Moving Party:           Defendant Julio Moreno Jr.

Responding Party:    Plaintiff

Notice:                     Sufficient

Ruling:                     MOTION TO RECLASSIFY TO LIMITED JURISDICTION IS DENIED.

¿¿ 

Background

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present auto accident case against Defendant. Defendant now moves the Court to reclassify the present case as limited jurisdiction because Defendant recently learned that the total damages sought are below $25,000. This assessment is based on Plaintiff's reported vehicle damages of approximately $16,000 combined with medical expenses totaling $8,020. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition.

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.)

Analysis

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 and did not file the present motion with significant delay.

However, there exists a possibility that Plaintiff's recovery could exceed $25,000. First, the sum of the property damage and Plaintiff’s current medical expenses already amounts to $24,020.00, which is near the threshold for limited jurisdiction. Second, the absence of referrals or appointments for future medical treatment does not preclude the possibility of Plaintiff seeking future medical expenses. Defendant has not produced any documents, such as discovery responses or deposition excerpts, to demonstrate otherwise. Third, Plaintiff is seeking general damages in the complaint, which typically amount to three times the special damages. This would likely push the total damages beyond the $25,000 threshold. Since there exists a possibility that Plaintiff's recovery could exceed $25,000, the present motion is therefore 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.