Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV28687, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

                                       Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.  This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.    
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 22STCV28687    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND 

On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff Christopher Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Beverly Hills Marriott, Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., and Does 1-100 for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Ashford TRS Beverly Hills LLC as Doe 1. 

On March 21, 2024, the Court dismissed the complaint against Defendant Beverly Hills Marriott without prejudice. 

On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Ashford TRS Beverly Hills, LLC and Does 1-100 for negligence. 

On March 25, 2024, Ashford TRS Beverly Hills LLC (“Ashford”) filed an answer. 

On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to reclassify the case from unlimited civil to limited civil.  The motion was set for April 18, 2025.  The motion is unopposed.  The Court continued the hearing to June 11, 2025. 

Trial is currently scheduled for July 14, 2025. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff asks the Court to reclassify the case as a limited civil case. 

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 thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) 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 (Walker).)  “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 [the jurisdictional limit].’” (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 [the jurisdictional amount] 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 [the jurisdictional amount]. 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.) 

DISCUSSION 

          Plaintiff asks to reclassify the case as a limited civil case because Plaintiff now believes that, “given the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and medical bills being approximately $4,000.00 it has become virtually certain that a verdict will not exceed $35,000.00.”  (Motion p. 5.)  Defendant agrees to the reclassification. 

The Court grants the motion and reclassifies the case as a limited civil case. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Christopher Martinez’s motion to reclassify the case as a limited civil case.  The Court reclassifies 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.