Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV19424, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV19424 Hearing Date: September 19, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2021, Plaintiff Irma Villarreal (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), Requena Karliene Annetha, and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle and general negligence.
On November 3, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants City of Redondo Beach as Doe 1, City of Torrance as Doe 2, County of Los Angeles as Doe 3, and California Department of Transportation as Doe 4.
On December 29, 2021, the City of Torrance filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants LACMTA, Requena Karliene Annetha, and Roes 1-20 for indemnification, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. On February 18, 2022, Cross-Defendant Karlene Requena (erroneously sued and served as Requena Karliene Annetha) (“Requena”) filed an answer. On March 7, 2022, LACMTA filed an answer. On March 18, 2022, the Court dismissed the City of Torrance’s cross-complaint without prejudice at the City of Torrance’s request.
On December 30, 2021, City of Redondo Beach filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant LACMTA and Roes 1-10 for partial equitable indemnity, total equitable indemnity and declaratory relief. On February 18, 2022, LACMTA filed an answer. On May 27, 2022, the Court dismissed the City of Redondo Beach without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. On July 28, 2022, the Court dismissed the City of Redondo Beach’s cross-complaint without prejudice at the City of Redondo Beach’s request.
On January 26, 2022, the Court dismissed the County of Los Angeles without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On March 15, 2022, the Court dismissed the City of Torrance without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On March 7, 2022, LACMTA and Requena filed answers to Plaintiff’s complaint.
On August 22, 2023, LACMTA filed a motion to reclassify Plaintiff’s action as a limited civil case to be heard on September 19, 2023. On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On September 12, 2023, LACMTA filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for December 1, 2023.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
LACMTA requests that Plaintiff’s case be reclassified as a limited civil case and that the Court order Plaintiff to pay the transfer fees and costs.
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 provides in part:
“(a) The plaintiff, cross-complainant, or petitioner may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. The defendant or cross-defendant may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. The court, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time. A motion for reclassification does not extend the moving party’s time to amend or answer or otherwise respond. The 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.
“(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.
“(2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subds. (a), (b).)
Limited civil cases include cases “in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 86, subd. (a)(1).)
“[A] matter may be reclassified as a limited civil action ‘when (i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (ii) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will “necessarily” result in a verdict below the superior court's jurisdictional amount . . . .’ ” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276-277 (Ytuarte), quoting Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.) “Even more appropriately, ‘... the test [is] ... whether “lack of jurisdiction is clear”...' [or] virtually unattainable....” ' ” (Id. at p. 277, quoting Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 269.) “This standard involves an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim, and according to Walker, requires a ‘high level of certainty that [the] damage award will not exceed $25,000.’” (Ibid., quoting Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 269.) “The Supreme Court explained: ‘ “The [trial] 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 [of the] demand[ ]”.’ “ (Ibid., quoting Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 270; see Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 402 [“The unlikeliness of a judgment in excess of $25,000 is not the test. The trial court reviews the record to determine whether the result is obtainable. Simply stated, the trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability”].)
“Accordingly under Walker the superior court must deny the motion to reclassify the case as limited (and thus keep the matter in the unlimited civil court) unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. This standard of ‘legal certainty’ is not met when it appears a verdict within the unlimited court's jurisdiction is ‘possible.’ ” (Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 277; see Singer v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320 [superior court abused its discretion in ordering case transferred to municipal court where plaintiff sought damages for pain and suffering, creating possibility that total damages could exceed municipal court’s jurisdictional limit].)
DISCUSSION
LACMTA argues that Plaintiff’s case will necessarily result in a verdict that awards less than $25,000.00 in damages. Plaintiff’s current medical expenses total $6,380.00. Plaintiff has testified that she does not have any scheduled or planned future medical treatment. Plaintiff seeks $1,000 in property damages. Plaintiff is not making a claim for loss of earnings. Therefore, Plaintiff’s special damages are $7,380.00.
In response, Plaintiff argues that due to the nature of Plaintiff’s injuries, there is a reasonable probability that a jury will find that Plaintiff will require future care despite not having current plans to see a doctor.
The Court finds LACMTA has not shown the case will necessarily result in a verdict below the superior court’s jurisdictional amount. Therefore, the Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to reclassify the case as a limited civil case.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.