Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV20612, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20612    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND 

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff Mark Anthony Johnson Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bruce Campbell (“Campbell”), Southern California Edison Company (“Southern California Edison”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle and general negligence. 

On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Los Angeles Department of Water and Power as Doe 1. 

On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Edison Power Constructors, Inc. (“Edison Power”) as Doe 2. 

 On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant PLH Group as Doe 3. 

On March 8, 2023, Campbell filed an answer.  On May 5, 2023, Campbell filed another answer. 

On April 3, 2023, the City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (sued and served as Doe 1), filed an answer. 

 On May 5, 2023, Edison Power filed an answer. 

On June 2, 2023, the Court dismissed Southern California Edison without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation between Plaintiff and Southern California Edison. 

On September 27, 2023, Edison Power filed a motion to reclassify the case as a limited civil case.  The motion was set to be heard on December 4, 2023. On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On November 27, 2023, Edison Power field a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for April 22, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Edison Power requests that the Court reclassify the case as a limited civil case. 

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].) 

JUDICIAL NOTICE 

          The Court grants Edison Power’s request for judicial notice only of Exhibit A.  (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.)  The Court denies the request for judicial notice of Exhibits B-L. 

EDISON POWER’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

          Sustained: 1-3, 6

          Overruled: 4, 5, 7 

DISCUSSION 

A.   The complaint 

The complaint alleges the following: 

On February 4, 2020, at or near Eighth Street and Grand View Street in Los Angeles, Cambell was operating a motorized scooter eastbound on Eighth Street near Grand View Street.  Defendant negligently merged into Plaintiff’s lane of travel, colliding into Plaintiff’s motorized scooter.  Campbell, Southern California Edison, and Does 1-50 negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, operated, controlled and drove the vehicle. 

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff was hurt and physically injured, sustaining medical bills, loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and other damages, as well as substantial property damage, loss of use, towing, storage and other associated charges and damages, and will continue to sustain such damages in the future. 

    B.   Parties’ arguments 

In its motion, Edison Power asserts that Plaintiff “has submitted medicals of $2,715.00 with unknown loss of wages.”  As a result, Edison Power argues, “a recovery in excess of $25,000.00 is virtually unattainable and therefore the matter should be reclassified.”  Edison Power cites Plaintiff’s discovery responses showing medical expenses of $2,715 and a last day of treatment of April 8, 2020.

Edison Power argues that “Plaintiff’s general damages, based on a last date of treatment of April 8, 2020, do not support the classification of an unlimited civil action matter as it pertains to Plaintiff’s Complaint.”  (Motion p. 3.)  Aside from a declaration repeating this statement (Woods Dec. ¶ 16), Edison Power does not provide any evidence that Plaintiff's general damages -- together with other damages -- could not exceed $25,000. 

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that he has incurred more than $135,000 in medical expenses as the result of the accident, making a verdict over $25,000 likely. 

In its reply, Edison Power adjusts its figure for Plaintiff’s economic damages upward, to $7,668.  However, Edison Power argues that the remaining medical expenses that Plaintiff claims stem from a subsequent accident and are not recoverable in this case.  Therefore, Edison Power argues, reclassification is appropriate. 

C.   Analysis 

Edison Power has not shown that “it appears to a legal certainty” that Plaintiff’s damages – including general damages – will necessarily be less than $25,000.  The Court denies the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendant Edison Power Constructors, Inc.’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.