Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC01422, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC01422    Hearing Date: December 22, 2022    Dept: 26

Nolasco v. Duran, et al.


MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Othon Nolasco’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff Othon Nolasco (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Jose Benedicto Duran and Prima Pizza, Inc. dba Domino’s Pizza (“Defendants”). Defendants filed an Answer on April 12, 2021.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on August 30, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

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

In Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278, the Court of Appeals 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.” (Id. at 279.) Plaintiff’s burden is to 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.)

As the instant Motion to Reclassify was filed after the time to amend the Complaint, Plaintiff must show both that the case is incorrectly classified and good cause for the timing of the requested relief. Plaintiff’s counsel contends that the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries have only become known following his deposition on July 22, 2022. (Motion, Baldwin Decl., ¶3.) The Motion, however, is not supported by any evidence of Plaintiff’s medical expenses or possible future treatment. (Id. at ¶¶3-9.) Purportedly Plaintiff has been unable to obtain these records in a timely manner because of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. at ¶8.) However, the conclusory declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel is insufficient to demonstrate the possibility of a judgment in excess of the jurisdictional limit, as required by the moving statute.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Othon Nolasco’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.