Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC06297, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC06297    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 26

RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Erika Del Rosso’s Motion to Reclassify is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR COLLECTION OF FEES AND REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT. PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005(b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for motor vehicle negligence.

MOTION: Plaintiff failed to file the Civil Case Cover Sheet concurrently with the Complaint, resulting in the action being filed in the limited jurisdiction court. Plaintiff’s medial specials currently amount to $27,189.24 and the Complaint alleges that the damages are in excess of the unlimited court’s jurisdictional minimum.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 25, 2022.

REPLY: None filed as of September 25, 2022.

ANALYSIS:

On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff Erika Del Rosso (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Van-Rentals-R-Us, LLC and Rodolfo Aguiluz (“Defendants”). Defendants filed an Answer on July 29, 2022. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on August 24, 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.)

The instant Motion to Reclassify was filed after the time to amend the Complaint. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a) [“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed . . . .”].) Therefore, Plaintiff must show both that the case is incorrectly classified and good cause for the timing of the Motion. Plaintiff contends that action was inadvertently filed in the limited jurisdiction court because the Civil Case Cover Sheet was not filed concurrently with the Complaint. (Motion, Franco Decl., ¶4.) This is corroborated by the allegation in the Complaint that Plaintiff’s damages exceed the minimum jurisdictional limit of the Court ($25,001.00). (Compl., ¶¶10-11.) Plaintiff only learned this action was in the limited jurisdiction court in August 2022. (Ibid.) This sufficiently demonstrates good cause for the timing of the Motion.

The Motion is supported by evidence that Plaintiff has purportedly incurred medical expenses in the amount of $27,189.24. (Motion, Franco Decl., ¶¶2-3.) Furthermore, these damages are only Plaintiff’s medical specials and do not include general damages for pain and suffering, which would increase the possible judgment. (Compl., Prayer, ¶¶1-2.) Nor has Defendants offered any opposition to this Motion. Plaintiff, therefore, has shown the possibility that she may obtain a judgment in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Erika Del Rosso’s Motion to Reclassify is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR COLLECTION OF FEES AND REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT. PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.