Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV35364, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35364    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On November 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Abrion Sims (“Sims”) and Miajah Hill (“Hill”) filed this action against Defendants Robert R. Nacar (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On December 15, 2022, Defendant filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Sims and Roes 1-20 for indemnity and contribution. On January 11, 2023, Sims filed an answer to the cross-complaint. 

On March 15, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to reclassify the case as a limited civil case.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is currently scheduled for May 6, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Defendant 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

The complaint alleges that on November 6, 2020, Defendant negligently drove his vehicle into Plaintiffs’ vehicle, injuring Plaintiffs and damaging their property. Plaintiffs allegedly suffered general and special damages. 

B.   Defendant’s arguments 

Defendant asserts that Sims “has submitted medical specials of $780.99, no property damages, and $3,096 in alleged lost wages. She requires no future treatment and has no claim for future loss of earnings.”  (Motion p. 2.)  In addition, according to Defendant, Sims cannot recover general damages under Proposition 213 because she did not have automobile insurance.  (Motion p. 3.) 

Defendant states that Hill “has submitted medical specials of $502.80, no property damage, and no lost wages. She requires no future treatment and has no claim for future loss of earning[s].”  (Motion p. 2.)  According to Defendant, it is “almost impossible” that Hill will recover more than $35,000.00 in general damages.  (Motion p. 3.) 

Defendant had good cause for not moving earlier to reclassify the case, he argues, because he had to conduct discovery to determine the nature and extent of Plaintiffs’ claimed damages. 

C.   Analysis 

Even if Sims may not pursue general damages (an issue the Court does not decide), Hill has asserted a general damage claim against Defendant.  “ ‘ “Pain and suffering are not subject to precise measurement by any scale, and their translation into money damages is peculiarly the function of the trier of the facts.” ’ [Citation.]” (Singer v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320, quoting Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 269.)  Defendant’s belief that it is “almost impossible” for Hill to recover more than $35,000.00 in general damages does not show “to a legal certainty” that Hill’s damages – including general damages – will necessarily be less than $35,000. 

“If any of several claims joined in the complaint exceeds [the amount in controversy], no part of the case is subject to the rules governing limited civil cases.”  (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 3:104, p. 3-15.) 

The Court denies the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendant Robert R. Nacar’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.