Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV00880, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00880    Hearing Date: November 3, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

Sandra Ardon,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

Edna Soto Serrano, and Does 1-50, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 22AHCV00880

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

 

Date: November 3, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

          I.        INTRODUCTION

On January 1, 2023, Plaintiff Sandra Ardon (Ardon) filed her first amended complaint against Defendant Edna Soto Serrano (Serrano), for negligence. Ardon alleges that on October 22, 2020, Serrano caused a collision between their two vehicles. Ardon alleges she suffered injuries as a result of the accident, and sues for damages.

On June 6, 2023, Serrano filed her answer. On October 6, 2023, Serrano filed the instant Motion to Reclassify Case to Limited Jurisdiction. Ardon filed an Opposition on October 16, 2023. Serrano filed a Reply on October 20, 2023.

          Before the Court is Serrano’s Motion to Reclassify from Unlimited to Limited jurisdiction. Serrano urges that the case is incorrectly classified as unlimited as the amount in controversy is necessarily $25,000.00 or less. For the reasons that follow, the motion to reclassify is DENIED.

 

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          Code of Civil Procedure § 403.040 allows a party to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading or respond to the initial pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040(a).)  If the motion is made after the time for the party to amend the pleading or respond to a complaint, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(b).)

In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff’s damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.)  If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited.  (Ibid.)  This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.”  (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)

In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeal examined the principles it set forth in Walker and held that “the court should reject the plaintiff’s effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an ‘unlimited’ case is certain and clear.”  (Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 279 (emphasis added).)  Nevertheless, the plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.”  (Ibid.)

 

III.     ANALYSIS

Serrano seeks to reclassify this action as a limited civil action on the grounds that before discovery was received, counsel did not “have any information pertaining to the plaintiff’s alleged damages in the matter.” (Motion ¶ 9.) Counsel became aware of the alleged amount of damages when Ardon served her responses to Serrano’s form interrogatories. (Motion ¶ 8.)

Serrano’s counsel states that until Plaintiff Ardon filed her responses to Serrano’s discovery requests, Serrano was unaware of the amount of alleged damages in this case. (Bhatia Decl. ¶ 9.) On August 24, 2023, Serrano served her first sets of form and special interrogatories on Ardon. (Bhatia Decl. ¶ 3.) On September 25, 2023, Ardon served her responses on Serrano. (Bhatia Decl. ¶ 4.) In response to Form Interrogatory 6.4, requesting information as to medical treatment sought because of the incident, Ardon responded that she sought $605.00 of care from Brentview Urgent Care on 10/23/20 and $395.00 of care from Alhambra Health Clinic on 12/11/20. (Motion, Exh. A, p.29: 27-2, p. 30: 1-12.)

Secondly, Serrano urges that “Besides the special damages, the only other potential recoverable item of damage in this case is general damages, which, given the amount of plaintiff’s alleged special damages, will not bring the value of this case over the jurisdictional limit for an unlimited jurisdiction action of $25,000.” (Motion p.7: 24-26, see also Reply, p.4: 26-28.) Serrano does not support this contention with any additional evidence. To the extent that Serrano is urging that the total amount in controversy is necessarily less than $25,000.00, this is insufficient to prove to a “legal certainty” that the total damages, factoring in general damages, will be less than $25,000.00. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.)  

Ardon opposes this motion because “Plaintiff’s discovery responses are not ‘good casue [cause]’ for Defendant’s delay.” (Opposition, p. 3: 17-19.) To the extent that Ardon is arguing that Serrano did not adequately demonstrate good cause for not bringing the motion to reclassify earlier, this is insufficient.

In addition, Ardon opposes the Motion because “Plaintiff continues to have these complaints [her injuries from the accident] to date.” (Opposition p.4: 24-25.) Additionally, Ardon urges that she “was recommended for more treatment [which] she will acquire to relieve her suffering.” (Opposition, p.4: 26-27.) Thus, plaintiff urges that the case was not incorrectly classified. (Opposition, p.5: 3.)

The Court finds that Serrano has demonstrated good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. The information as to what care plaintiff Ardon sought after the accident, and how much the care cost, was not known to Serrano before discovery responses were received. However, Serrano has not demonstrated how Ardon’s total potential recovery would necessarily be less than $25,000.00. Even if the entirety of special damages is $1,000.00, this does not foreclose Ardon from seeking and obtaining a total of more than $25,000.00, as the cost of continuing care and general damages is unknown. There is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00.  

 

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

          For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Edna Soto Serrano’s Motion to Reclassify Case to Limited Jurisdiction is DENIED. Plaintiff Ardon is ordered to give notice.

         

Dated:                    

 

                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT