Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV25649, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25649    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

Plaintiff alleges that on December 16, 2022, while shopping at a Ralphs grocery store, he was assaulted by a security guard after opening a container of sushi prior to payment. Plaintiff contends that the guard forcibly removed him from the store and pepper-sprayed him. However, Plaintiff admits he did not seek any medical or psychological treatment, has incurred no medical bills, and has no intention of pursuing such treatment in the future. Plaintiff further admits that he was unemployed at the time of the incident and is not seeking damages for lost wages. Defendant now moves to reclassify this case as a limited civil action.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Legal Standard 

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows the defendant or cross-defendant to file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. Defendant has 30 days to file a responsive pleading. CCP § 430.40(a) and CCP § 412.20(a)(3) 

(b) If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party to amend that party's initial pleading or to respond to a complaint, cross-complaint, or other initial pleading, the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The case is incorrectly classified and (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. 

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.) 

The amount of controversy for limited cases has been recently increased from 25,000 to 35,000. (See CCP section 85.)

Discussion

Defendant has demonstrated through Plaintiff’s own verified discovery responses that Plaintiff is not claiming any special damages for medical care, psychological treatment, or lost wages. Plaintiff confirmed that he did not receive any medical or psychiatric care following the incident and admitted that he recovered at home without incurring any medical expenses. (See Exhibit A, Nos. 44, 55, 56, 66–71; Exhibit B, same.) Plaintiff further stated that he has no intention of seeking such treatment in the future. (See Exhibit A, No. 38; Exhibit B, No. 38.)

Additionally, Plaintiff indicated he was unemployed at the time of the incident and therefore is not pursuing any claim for lost earnings. (See Exhibit A, Nos. 28, 29, 36, 37; Exhibit B, same.)

As for general damages, in response to form interrogatories requesting a description of injuries sustained, Plaintiff identified only “abrasions to my chest, face, and eyes,” with no mention of emotional distress or psychological harm. (See Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories.) Plaintiff’s claimed physical injuries did not result in any medical treatment and Plaintiff is not seeking future treatments, undermining any assertion of compensable pain and suffering.

Furthermore, Defendant has shown good cause for not bringing this motion earlier, as Plaintiff’s verified discovery responses regarding damages were not served until March 2025.

Based on the fact that Plaintiff is not alleging any economic damages, is not asserting a claim for emotional distress, has provided no support for general damages, and did not file an opposition contesting Defendant’s contentions, the Court finds with legal certainty that the amount in controversy does not exceed the $35,000 jurisdictional threshold for limited civil cases.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, and the case is reclassified as a limited civil matter.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.