Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 22STLC05300 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC05300, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05300 Hearing Date: February 16, 2023 Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT; MOTION TO RECLASSIFY TO UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Crestwood Hills Association

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Timothy D. Rand-Lewis

MOTION TO STRIKE;

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP §§ 403.040, 435-436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court, on its own motion, CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion Requesting the Court Exercise Its Discretion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amendment to Complaint filed by Crestwood Hills Association to MARCH 21, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition and Defendant may file a reply in compliance with the deadlines set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1005.

The Court, on its own motion, CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion to Reclassify filed by Crestwood Hills Association to MARCH 21, 2023 at 10:00 A.M in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) [OK]

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) [OK]

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) [OK]

OPPOSITION: Filed on February 2 and 10, 2023. [X] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Reply filed on February 8, 2023. [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff Timothy D. Rand-Lewis (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint in limited jurisdiction court against Defendant Crestwood Hills Association (“Defendant”), alleging defamation, negligence, violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, violation of the Unruh Act, and a general claim for “injunctive relief.” Plaintiff sought damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. Limited civil jurisdiction courts do not have authority to grant permanent injunctive relief or declaratory relief.

On September 8, 2022, Defendant filed a Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP). Because anti-SLAPP cannot be heard in limited jurisdiction courts, on September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Strike Defendant’s Special Motion to Strike.

On September 12, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Reclassify (“Motion to Reclassify”) the case to unlimited jurisdiction on the basis that Plaintiff requests relief that is not available in a limited jurisdiction court.

On September 13, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application and ordered the entire action to be reclassified as a civil unlimited case. (9-13-22 Minute Order.) The case was reclassified on September 19, 2022. (9-19-22 Notice of Reclassification.)

On September 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Errata” requesting that the Court strike the causes of action and remedies that he pleaded that caused the case to be reclassified, stating that his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were included “due to inadvertence of counsel in using a prior complaint format.” (Notice of Errata p. 1.)

On September 21, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notice of Errata.

On September 26, 2022, the Court erroneously entered default against Defendant. (9-26-22 Request for Entry of Default.)

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Stipulation to the Reclassification of the Case from Civil Unlimited to Civil Limited.” However, this was not a stipulation between the parties – it was merely Plaintiff’s statement that the case should be reclassified based on his “Notice of Errata.” On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff also filed an Ex Parte Application for Order Reclassifying the Case as a Limited Civil Case. On October 19, 2022, the Court ordered the case to be reclassified to limited jurisdiction court. (10-19-22 Minute Order.) The case was reclassified as a limited civil case and reassigned to Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse. (10-28-22 Minute Order.)

On November 10, 2022, the Court denied Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Order Striking Order Reclassifying and Reassigning Matter to Limited Civil Jurisdiction. (11-10-22 Minute Order.)

On November 29, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Setting Aside Default and vacated default against Defendant, entered on September 26, 2022. (11-29-22 Minute Order.)

On December 29, 2022, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify, filed on September 12, 2022, to February 16, 2023. (12-29-22 Minute Order.)

On January 5, 2023, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Strike Notice of Errata. (1-5-23 Minute Order.) However, the Court, on its own motion, struck the Notice of Errata filed by Plaintiff. (Ibid.)

On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Verified Amendment to and Correction of Complaint.

On January 17, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer.

On January 25, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion Requesting the Court Exercise Its Discretion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amendment to His Complaint under Code of Civil Procedure § 436 (“MTS”). On February 10, 2023, Judge Windham granted Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for An Order Advancing the Hearing on Defendant's Motion and advanced the hearing to February 16, 2023. (2-10-23 Minute Order.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the instant Motion on February 10, 2023.

On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify. Defendant filed a Reply to the Opposition on February 8, 2023.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Motion to Strike

California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 435; 436(a).) Motions may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings that are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules, or orders. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436(b).)

However, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 92(d).) The Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure § 435.5 requires that “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a).)

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s Verified Amendment to and Correction of Complaint on the grounds that it was filed after Defendant’s special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP) and “plaintiff may not amend their complaint to avoid a special motion to strike.” (MTS p. 2.) Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion has not been heard by the Court and, thus, the Court should strike “Plaintiff’s newest attempt to avoid the Anti-SLAPP Motion.” (Ibid. at p. 8.) On February 9, 2023, Defendant filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order Advancing the Hearing on the Motion to Strike; Plaintiff opposed the Ex Parte Application. On February 10, 2023, Judge Windham granted Defendant’s Ex Parte Application and advanced the hearing on the Motion to Strike to February 16, 2023. (2-10-23 Minute Order.)

On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion to Strike. Plaintiff argues that a Motion to Strike in limited civil jurisdiction can only be filed on the ground that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint,” citing Code of Civil Procedure § 92. (Oppos. to MTS pp. 1-2.) Thus, the Motion should be denied due to Defendant’s “improper and bad faith attempt to circumvent Code of Civil Procedure § 92.” (Ibid. at p. 2.) Furthermore, Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion was never properly filed as such motions are not permitted in limited jurisdiction courts. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also states that “he objects to the Court’s February 10, 2023, Order advancing the hearing on Defendant’s Motion as said Order violates Plaintiff’s right to due process” as it was issued by a judge who is not assigned to the case and without notice to Plaintiff. (Ibid. at pp. 2-3.) Finally, Plaintiff argues that it properly filed the Amendment to the Complaint and did not require permission from the Court to amend the Complaint. (Ibid.)

Given the Plaintiff’s objection to the Court’s ruling to advance the hearing to February 16, 2023, and the reduced time to oppose the Motion, the Court provides Plaintiff with additional time to file a supplemental Opposition. The Court also allows Defendant to file a reply to the Plaintiff’s Opposition.

B. Motion to Reclassify

Code of Civil Procedure § 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(a).) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer to motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(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(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.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)

In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeal 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.” (Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 279 (emphasis added).) 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.)

On September 12, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Reclassify the case as a civil unlimited case. In response, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Errata” requesting that the Court strike the causes of action and remedies that he pleaded that caused the case to be reclassified. On January 5, 2023, the Court struck Plaintiff’s “Notice of Errata.” (1-5-23 Minute Order.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Verified Amendment to and Correction of Complaint referencing the parts of the Complaint to be amended and corrected.

On January 25, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion Requesting the Court Exercise Its Discretion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amendment to His Complaint under Code of Civil Procedure § 436, as discussed above.

The Court’s analysis of Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify depends on the outcome of the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amendment to Complaint. Given that the Court continues the hearing on the Motion to Strike, the Court also continues the hearing on the instant Motion to Reclassify.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

The Court, on its own motion, CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion Requesting the Court Exercise Its Discretion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amendment to Complaint filed by Crestwood Hills Association to MARCH 21, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition and Defendant may file a reply in compliance with the deadlines set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1005.

The Court, on its own motion, CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion to Reclassify filed by Crestwood Hills Association to MARCH 21, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.