Defendants Igor Melnikov and Masha Melnikov’s Motion to Reclassify Case to Limited Jurisdiction is DENIED.

Defendants Igor Melnikov and Masha Melnikov to give notice

TENTATIVE RULING

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff Nina Shepherd, as Trustee of the Cox Family Trust (“Plaintiff”), requests judicial notice of her complaint in this action. Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

Analysis

Actions in which the amount in controversy is $35,000 or less are classified as limited civil cases, including an unlawful detainer action where the whole amount of damages claimed is $35,000 or less. (Code Civ. Proc., § 86, subds. (a)(1), (a)(4).) Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, subdivision (a), provides that “[t]he court, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time,” and “[t]he court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification, regardless of any fault or lack of fault, if the case has been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification.”

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396, subdivision (b), a matter may be transferred when, during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will necessarily result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdiction amount or above the limited jurisdiction amount. “In deciding whether a matter should be transferred pursuant to section 396, a trial court must look beyond the pleadings but not so far as to trespass into the province of the trier of fact.” (Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.) “Section 396 does not permit a trial judge to determine the merits of a claim because to do so would run the risk of depriving a plaintiff of the right to a jury trial in the forum of choice.” (Ibid., italics, ellipsis, and brackets omitted.) Thus, “there must be a high level of certainty that the damage award will not exceed [$35,000].” (Ibid., quotation marks, italics, and brackets omitted.) “Stated another way, the inquiry is whether damages over [$35,000] could be proven or whether such damages could not be obtained,” or, “more appropriately,” “whether lack of jurisdiction is clear.” (Ibid., quotation marks, italics, ellipsis, and brackets omitted.) “The court may believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, but this is not enough to defeat jurisdiction, unless it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recover the amount which he has demanded.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270.) 

Defendants Igor Melnikov and Masha Melnikov (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order reclassifying this case to limited civil jurisdiction because the amount of damages is $9,000. (Compl., p. 3.) Plaintiff points to Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, subdivision (b), which provides that the Court shall grant a reclassification motion filed after the time to answer where the case is incorrectly classified, and the moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. Notably, Defendants’ motion lacks any declaration describing why they did not move for reclassification earlier. Even if they had, though, the Court would not be inclined to reclassify this action because Plaintiff also seeks holdover damages of $300 per day (see Compl., p. 3), and calculations indicate that this action may result in more than $27,000 of holdover damages because that is only 90 days of holdover, with approximately 60 of those days having already occurred. The Court cannot reasonably conclude that this action will be fully resolved with Defendants having vacated the property by the end of June. Accordingly, Defendants Igor Melnikov and Masha Melnikov’s Motion to Reclassify Case to Limited Jurisdiction is DENIED.