Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC02466, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC02466, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC02466 Hearing Date: September 11, 2024 Dept: 26

Vera v. Guerrero, et al.

RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Maria Vera’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 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION COURT. PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff Maria Vera (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Isabel Guerrero (“Defendant”) and Patrick Uribio, who was later dismissed. Defendant answered the Complaint on May 25, 2022. The parties twice stipulated to continue the trial date, to July 22, 2024.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify the Action on May 29, 2024 and the following day sought to shorten time on the hearing. The ex parte application was denied but the Court vacated the trial date and set a trial setting conference for July 24, 2024. (Minute Order, 06/03/24.) Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion on July 11, 2024 and Plaintiff replied on July 17, 2024.

Discussion

The Motion to Reclassify is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, which 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 the jurisdictional limit. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) The jurisdictional limit, effective January 1, 2024, is $35,000.00. (Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a).)

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.) Plaintiffs’ burden is to present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed [the jurisdictional limit] and the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of [the jurisdictional limit] is obtainable.” (Ibid.)

As the instant Motion was filed after the time to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must show both that the case is incorrectly classified and good cause for the timing of the Motion. Plaintiff’s Motion is supported by a recommendation for future medical treatment that may amount to $263,680.00. (Motion, Kielty Decl., ¶23 and Exh. K.) Defendant’s opposition argues that Plaintiff’s damages in this case cannot amount to more than $35,000.00 because it was a minor car accident with minimal damage and no injuries reported on-scene. (Opp., Wenning Decl., ¶3 and Exh. A.) The opposition goes on to argue that Plaintiff has had a long history of shoulder and back injuries that are attributable to other causes, including a severe car accident in 2019. (Id. at Exhs. C-D.) This history, however, does not demonstrate that Plaintiff’s injuries might not have been exacerbated by the subject accident requiring Plaintiff to obtain future medical treatment at the cost indicated. (See Ng v. Hudson (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 250, 255 [ holding “Plaintiff may recover to the full extent that his condition has worsened as a result of defendant's tortious act.”].) The Court finds, therefore, that Plaintiff has shown a possibility of damages that exceed the jurisdictional limit of the limited jurisdiction court.

Regarding the timing of the Motion, Plaintiff must show good cause for seeking reclassification two years after Defendant’s answer was filed. Plaintiff has shown that she continued to seek treatment for her injuries into late 2023. (Motion, Kielty Decl., ¶¶7-14 and Exhs. B-I.) Unfortunately, after Plaintiff’s counsel received the recommendation for future treatment in the amount of $263,680.00 in November 2023, they were swamped by four major trials in the span of four months. (Id. at ¶¶20-32.) Once the trials were completed, Plaintiff’s counsel realized reclassification had to be sought in this action. This Court, therefore, is faced with the question of whether Plaintiff’s attorney’s lack of attention to the subject case amounts to good cause under the statute.

Statutes requiring good cause for a court order rarely define the phrase and, then, only in terms of those reasons that are insufficient. (See, e.g., Pen.Code, § 1050, subd. (e) [“Continuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause. Neither the convenience of the parties nor a stipulation of the parties is in and of itself good cause.”].) It usually falls to the courts to establish the boundaries of good cause. Although the courts have defined “good cause” in a variety of contexts, the concept is relative and depends on all the circumstances. (Walker v. Blue Cross (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 985, 994, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 184.) It may be based on any matter relevant to the determination. As a general rule, however, “good cause” includes reasons that are fair, honest, in good faith, not trivial, arbitrary, capricious, or pretextual, and reasonably related to legitimate needs, goals, and purposes. (See Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Internat., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93, 107–108, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 900, 948 P.2d 412.) In determining the meaning of “good cause” in a particular context, the courts utilize common sense based upon the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances include the purpose of the underlying statutory scheme.

(Laraway v. Sutro & Co., Inc. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 266, 274.) The Court finds that using common sense and under the totality of the circumstances, good cause exists for the timing of this Motion. Plaintiff’s counsel obtained information regarding her continued treatment at the end of 2023. In the immediate four-month period, however, Plaintiff’s counsel’s capacity as a solo practitioner with a small number of staff was suddenly challenged by the unusual circumstance of four significant trials. (Motion, Kielty Decl., ¶¶20-32.) Once those trials were concluded, Plaintiff’s counsel realized a motion to reclassify should be brought in this action. (Id. at ¶32.) This is not neglect of the case or an attempt to seek reclassification in bad faith. Therefore, the Court finds that the good cause requirement is also satisfied.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.