Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC06299, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC06299    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: 26

RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

ARGUE

ANALYSIS:

On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff Tobias Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Karen Schultz and Darla Hernandez Schultz (“Defendants”). Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint on November 5, 2021. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on June 20, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (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.

The Motion is supported by evidence that Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses in the amount of $29,509.39. (Motion, Basil Decl., ¶7 and Exh. 1.) 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. (Motion, p. 4:9-11.) However, the Motion does not demonstrate good cause for the timing of the request to reclassify. The Motion was filed eight months after the action was commenced, without explanation for the delay in seeking reclassification. The court needs to learn the reasons for this delay.

Conclusion

If Plaintiffs Tobias Gonzalez can show good cause for the eight-month delay in filing this Motion to Reclassify, the court will grant the motion. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.