Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC02971, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC02971, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC02971 Hearing Date: September 19, 2023 Dept: 26

The Kroger Co. v. Sandoval, et al.

RECLASSIFY

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff The Kroger Company’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 April 28, 2022, Plaintiff The Kroger Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Dora Sandoval (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an answer on July 14, 2022. On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case with respect to Cuellar v. Sandoval, LASC Case No. 22STCV07018.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reclassify action on August 9, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to reclassify this action 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. (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 after the time to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must show that the case is incorrectly classified and good cause for the timing of the motion. Plaintiff contends this case is incorrectly classified because it is related to LASC Case No. 22STCV07018, which is an unlimited jurisdiction case. (Motion, Tapper Decl., ¶2.) The two cases, however, have not been found to be related by the Court. Plaintiff also incorrectly argues that its motion to consolidate the cases in LASC Case No. 22STCV07018 was denied because this action is a limited jurisdiction case. In fact, no motion to consolidate the cases has been heard in either action. Rather, an ex parte application to advance the hearing date for the motion to consolidate in LASC Case No. 22STCV07018 was denied for lack of exigency on July 20, 2023. (LASC Case No. 22STCV07018, Minute Order, 07/20/23.) The denial was without prejudice to the parties filing a stipulation and proposed order to consolidate and points out that a limited jurisdiction case must be reclassified before consolidation. (Ibid.)

The parties have now stipulated to consolidate the actions for all purposes. (Motion, Tapper Decl., Exh. A.) Therefore, Plaintiff has shown that the action should be reclassified as an unlimited jurisdiction court to allow for transfer to the Independent Calendar court and consolidation with LASC Case No. 22STCV07018.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.