Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01010, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01010, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01010 Hearing Date: May 24, 2023 Dept: C

Suk v. Tae global, inc.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01010

HEARING: 5/24/23 @ 1:30 PM

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Tae Global, Inc.’s motion to reclassify this unlimited jurisdiction matter as a limited jurisdiction matter is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Tae Global, Inc. (Defendant) moves for an order to reclassify the case from unlimited jurisdiction to limited jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 403.040.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a defendant to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleadings. (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 defendant to respond to 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.) 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.) (Emphasis added.)¿

Discussion

Defendant contends that the Court should reclassify this matter from unlimited jurisdiction to limited jurisdiction because the evidence shows that a verdict in this case cannot exceed $25,000.00.

Defendant has failed to establish that the case is incorrectly classified because from the evidence it is not clear and certain that Plaintiff’s claim will not exceed $25,000.00. In support, Defendant cites Plaintiff Jinyu Suk’s (Plaintiff) discovery responses, specifically, responses to form interrogatories numbers 8.7 and 9.1, a bill from Plaintiff’s only medical treatment, and a bill of Plaintiff’s meal. Defendant argues that Plaintiff claimed $2,642.46, with $1,879.17 for having to pay substitute instructors while he could not work due to the incident, $460.00 for the only medical treatment at Cerritos Medical Center, and $303.29 for the cost of Plaintiff’s meal on the date of the incident. Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not consider general damages and relies on three cases to support his contention that a judgment over $25,000.00 is obtainable. Plaintiff cites: (1) an award of $145,000 for general damages for a second degree burn to a woman’s groin; (2) an award of $250,000 for burns covering six percent of the bodies of a mother and daughter; and (3) an award of $140,000 for a second degree burn with a radius of six inches around a woman’s thigh and abdomen. Defendant argues that the cases are distinguishable because the injuries in the cases are more significant.

The Court finds that the injuries in the cited cases are distinguishable because the cases involve larger burns and burns to sensitive areas such as the groin. However, even if the instant case is dissimilar from the cases cited by Plaintiff, it does not follow that a judgment of under $25,000.00 is clear and certain. The Court finds that the claim is not clearly and certainly less than $25,000.00 because even if the burns to Plaintiff are less severe than the burns in the awards cited by Plaintiff the general damages need only exceed approximately $22,500, not the much larger awards in the cases cited by Plaintiff. While Defendant has distinguished the instant case from those cases, it fails to establish that it is clear and certain that a much lesser award of $25,000.00 is unobtainable.

Accordingly, Defendant Tae Global, Inc.’s motion to reclassify is DENIED.