Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC00682, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00682    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: 26

RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Juanita Castanon-Gamboa’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

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 breach of contract with respect to installation of security system.

MOTION: Plaintiff miscalculated her damages at less than $25,000.00. Based on new calculations for direct and punitive damages, Plaintiff is entitled to more than $100,000.00 and injunctive relief.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 9, 2022.

REPLY: None filed as of September 9, 2022.

ANALYSIS:

On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff Juanita Castanon-Gamboa (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants The ADT Security Corporation and America’s Security (“Defendants”). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on March 21, 2022. The Motion initially came for hearing on July 19, 2022, at which time the Court continued to matter to September 13, 2022. (Minute Order, 07/19/22.) 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. (CCP § 403.040(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 within 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 only show that the case is incorrectly classified. Plaintiff contends that the damages were miscalculated, resulting in filing the Complaint in the limited jurisdiction court. The Motion, however, is not supported by any evidence of the damages Plaintiff has purportedly incurred. In fact, the supporting declaration filed by Plaintiff does not include facts demonstrating the amount of damages Plaintiff suffered, other than a simple conclusion that the damages exceed $100,000. (See Motion, Castanon-Gamboa Decl., ¶14.) This is insufficient to show the possibility that Plaintiff may obtain a judgment in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Juanita Castanon-Gamboa’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.