Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC03245, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC03245 Hearing Date: May 10, 2023 Dept: 26
Hamel v. Butterfield,
et al.
MOTION TO RECLASSIFY
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Michael Hamel’s Motion to Reclassify Action is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
On May 12, 2022,
Plaintiff Michael Hamel (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for motor vehicle
negligence against Defendant Daryll Butterfield (“Defendant”). Defendant filed
an Answer on July 5, 2022.
Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion to Reclassify the Action to a Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction on
January 31, 2023. Defendant filed an opposition on March 21, 2023 and Plaintiff
replied on March 27, 2023.
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.)
The motion is supported solely by a declaration from counsel
stating that Plaintiff’s medical specials are approximately $15,000.00 to
$20,000.00, with loss of earning of damages at approximately $100,000.00.
(Motion, Quirk Decl., ¶4.) The declaration vaguely states that this information
was obtained “after written discovery and deposition.” (Id. at ¶3.) No
exhibits, such as copies of medical bills or paychecks, are attached to
corroborate the declaration. Nor are the statements in the declaration based on
personal knowledge. (See id. at ¶1.) This unsupported statement is not
sufficient to demonstrate a possibility that Plaintiff’s damages will exceed
the jurisdictional limit of the Court.
The Court also finds Plaintiff has not demonstrated good
cause for the timing of the motion. None of the dates mentioned in the motion
are proved through the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, which lacks any
specific information regarding when the discovery was obtained. In opposition,
Defendant points out that Plaintiff made an offer to compromise in the amount
of $100,000.00 on July 7, 2022. (Opp., Roark Decl., Exh. C.) Plaintiff does not
address this offer in the reply and simply reiterates the arguments from the
motion. The reply is also not supported by any declaration or exhibits.
Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that either
factor necessary for reclassification is satisfied.
Conclusion
Plaintiff Michael
Hamel’s Motion to Reclassify Action is DENIED.
Court clerk to give notice.