Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 22STLC03356 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC03356, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC03356 Hearing Date: September 6, 2022 Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO RECLASSIFY ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Nasch Westlake Commerce Center, LP

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nasch Westlake Commerce Center, LP’s Motion to Reclassify Action is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR COLLECTION OF FEES AND REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT. PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

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

BACKGROUND: Action for breach of rental agreement.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Reclassify action to unlimited jurisdiction court. The action was incorrectly filed in the limited jurisdiction court. Plaintiff’s damages are in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this court.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 31, 2022.

REPLY: None filed as of August 31, 2022.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Nasch Westlake Commerce Center, LP (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of lease agreement against Defendant Bleu Fox Gas Company, LLC (“Defendant”) on May 17, 2022. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on May 23, 2022. Defendant has yet to be served with the Summons and Complaint; accordingly, no opposition to the Motion 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. Therefore, Plaintiff must only show that the case is incorrectly classified. Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration explaining that this case was incorrectly classified as a limited jurisdiction case due to a clerical error on the caption of the Complaint and the Civil Case Cover Sheet. (Motion, Zeff Decl., ¶4.) This comports with the damages sought in the Complaint, in the amount of $31,565.02, as set forth in the allegations of Plaintiff’s itemized damages. (See Compl., Attachment BC-2.) Based on the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the extent of damages sought, there is a possibility that Plaintiff will obtain a judgment in excess of $25,000.00. Therefore, reclassification of the action to a court of unlimited jurisdiction is appropriate.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.