Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV14832, Date: 2024-07-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14832    Hearing Date: July 8, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Quinteros Amaya (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Isaac Medina Gonzalez (“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On September 12 ,2023, Defendant filed an answer. 

On May 10, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to reclassify the case as a limited civil case.  The motion was set for hearing on July 8, 2024.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is currently scheduled for December 23, 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 

A.   The complaint 

The complaint alleges that on August 9, 2021, at Grand View Street at or near 7th Street in Los Angeles, Defendants negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, drove and operated their motor vehicle, causing a collision with Plaintiff's vehicle and injuring Plaintiff.  Plaintiff seeks general and special damages. 

    B.   Defendant’s motion 

Defendant asserts that the case was improperly classified as an unlimited civil case because a verdict will necessarily be less than $35,000.00.  Defendant contends that "[g]ood cause exists for seeking the reclassification at this juncture, because information regarding the Plaintiff’s limited medical specials and property damage was not available to Defendant at the time of the answer to the Complaint, and only became apparent following ongoing discovery.”  (Motion p. 4.) 

According to Defendant, on January 4, 2024, Plaintiff served discovery responses indicating that his medical specials are $5,290.00, property damage is $7,500, damages for loss of use is $1,350.00, and damages for loss of a child car seat is $150.00.  In addition, Plaintiff is not pursuing a loss of earnings claim, he has not sought treatment in connection with this claim since December 2021, and he has no future medical appointments related to the accident.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s total damages claim is only $14,290.00 and is therefore below the $35,000.00 jurisdictional limit. 

C.   Analysis 

Defendant’s motion does not address Plaintiff’s request for general damages.  As a result, Defendant has not shown that recovery of more than $35,000.00 in combined general and special damages is “ ‘ “virtually unattainable.” ’ ” (Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 277, quoting Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 269.) 

“ ‘ “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.)  “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 Isaac Medina Gonzalez’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.