Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV01493, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01493    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Nkowane, et al., v. Soofer, et al.

CASE NO.:                21SMCV01493

MOTION:                  Motion to Reclassify

HEARING DATE:   3/15/2024

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure Section 86 defines limited court jurisdiction. As of January 2024, limited cases include cases at law in which the demand of damages, exclusive of interest, amounts to $35,000.00 or less. The court may order a case reclassified as a limited civil case upon finding to a legal certainty that a judgment over $35,000 cannot be obtained. (CCP §§ 396, 403.040(a).) A motion for reclassification shall be granted where the case is improperly classified and the moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (CCP § 403.040(b).) 

Mindful of this potential deprivation of damages that reclassification entails, courts have imposed a high standard on a trial court's determination that a matter does not meet minimum amount-in-controversy requirements. An action may be reclassified if, during the course of litigation, it reasonably concludes that the verdict will “necessarily” fall short of the superior court jurisdictional requirement of a claim exceeding the jurisdictional minimum. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270.) “A belief that a sufficient verdict is ‘highly unlikely’ is not enough to justify a transfer....” (Chahal v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 399, 402.)

Courts have required an adequate record, but not necessarily competent evidence, in support of transfers to a limited jurisdiction court. (Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 233 [evidence can include the complaint, arbitration awards and a settlement recommendation]; see Campbell v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 147, 154¿[decided under predecessor statute, and holding “the factors supporting … a transfer … will be evident to the trial judge without formal evidentiary proof.”].) However, “the party opposing reclassification (from unlimited to limited), to defeat the motion (or oppose the OSC) the party must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the verdict will exceed [the minimum].” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 277.) Without sufficient evidence as to the value of the case, where the allegations of the complaint preclude a finding that the verdict will “necessarily” fall short of the jurisdictional requirement, a reclassification order would be an abuse of discretion. (Stern, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at 233.)

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

All objections are OVERRULED.

Analysis

Defendant Farideh Soofer moves to reclassify this action to Limited Jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed $35,000 and Defendant’s investigation has “indisputably” shown that a recovery greater than $35,000 cannot be obtained by Plaintiffs. As set forth below, Defendant fails to show that Plaintiffs cannot recover, as a matter of law, more than $35,000.00.

Defendant principally relies on Plaintiffs’ purported “judicial admission” that they have only been damaged in the amount of $16,574.45, including “the cost for conducting expert

testing, moving costs, medical/emotional distress costs, reimbursement for cleaning and cost of

furniture that cannot be salvaged, and return of full security deposit.” (FAC ¶ 26.) However, this is not a judicial admission that they could not recover additional damages. The FAC only alleges that Plaintiffs “demanded” that amount on February 17, 2021, as a settlement offer which sought to recoup “the cost for conducting expert testing, moving costs, medical emotional distress costs, reimbursement for cleaning and cost of furniture that cannot be salvaged, and return of full security deposit.” Even read strictly, the FAC does not admit that this was the total damages. Notably, Plaintiffs have pled general and emotional distress damages as a part of their negligence and breach of warranty claims. (FAC ¶¶ 34, 43; Prayer ¶1.) Thus, Defendant’s motion is unsupported.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.