Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC00483, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00483    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 26

Ayala v. Nguyen, et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:   

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

ANALYSIS:

On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff Allison Ayala (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Jean Nguyen (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an answer on March 3, 2022.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reclassify the action to a court of unlimited jurisdiction on March 28, 2023. To date, no opposition has been filed to the motion.

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).)

The initial time for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings having passed, the motion must show both that the case is incorrectly classified and that Plaintiff has good cause for not moving to reclassify earlier. 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.) 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.)

Plaintiff presents evidence that when this action was filed the amount of damages, specifically medical specials, were not known. (Motion, Eckstein Decl., ¶10.) It remains that all of Plaintiff’s medical bills have not yet been obtained but the bills currently in Plaintiff’s possession show special damages of $19,425.56. (Id. at ¶¶5-6 and Exh. A.) Plaintiff continues to experience pain and is still treating with medical providers. (Id. at ¶7.) In seeking recovery of the medical specials, future expenses, and pain and suffering. Plaintiff has demonstrated that the possibility that damages awarded in this action will exceed the amount in controversy allowed in the limited jurisdiction Court.

Conclusion

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

Moving party to give notice.