Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC01387, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC01387    Hearing Date: September 25, 2023    Dept: 26

Interinsurance Exchange v. Tellez, et al.

RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’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 TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT. PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Jakob Alexander Tellez and Elizabeth Luis (“Defendants”). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on July 7, 2023. The case came for trial on August 30, 2023, at which time the Court placed the trial off calendar and set an order to show cause regarding default/default judgment for September 25, 2023. No response to the action, nor 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 was filed before the time to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must only show that the case is incorrectly classified. The complaint seeks subrogation of insurance payments made to Plaintiff’s insured. (Compl., ¶¶11-15.) At the time the action was filed only the property insurance claim had been settled in the amount of $14,317.01. (Id. at p. 5, Prayer Item 1.) Shortly thereafter, an additional settlement was reached pursuant to the uninsured motorist policy, for a total of $86,414.01. (Motion, Tapper Decl., ¶3.) Therefore, Plaintiff has shown that the action is now incorrectly classified based on the new amount in controversy and should be reassigned to an unlimited jurisdiction court.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’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 TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT. PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.