Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02997, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02997    Hearing Date: October 15, 2024    Dept: C

Molly Marie Ramos vs Beverly Town Center, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV02997

Hearing Date: October 15, 2024

#10

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Beverly Town Centre, LLC, Khajak Harootun, and Janet Harootun’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background 

Plaintiff Molly Marie Ramos (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on July 6, 2023, at approximately 10:37 p.m., she was walking in the parking lot of the Beverly Town Center when she “stepped on the non-visible, sharp, metal rods protruding up from the concrete of the poorly lit parking lot of the Premises, slicing her foot and causing her to sustain a large laceration on her foot.” (Complaint, p. 4.) Plaintiff’s discovery responses as of December 21, 2023, stated that her medical expenses were less than $8,000.00.

Defendants Beverly Town Centre, LLC, Khajak Harootun, and Janet Harootun (“Defendants”) move 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 reclassified. (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.)¿¿¿ 

Discussion 

Defendants contend 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 $35,000.00.  

Defendants have 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 $35,000.00. Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot obtain more than $35,000.00 because her adjusted medical bills are $7,456.00. Plaintiff contends that the figure does not include the noneconomic damages she suffered from her injuries. While an award for general damages of more than five times the amount of the medical bills would be unusual, it is not clear and certain that such an award cannot occur.  Additionally, Plaintiff states that she continues to experience residual dull pain. (Mnatsakanian Decl., ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendants have failed to establish that the case is incorrectly classified.  

Defendants’ motion to reclassify is DENIED.