Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC05464, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05464    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 26

Ladd v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Rick Ladd’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 THE WRITS AND RECEIVERS DEPARTMENT. PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On August 17, 2022, Plaintiffs Rick Ladd (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for refund of property taxes, accounting, and declaratory relief against Defendants County of Los Angeles and Jeff Prang (“Defendants”). Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reclassify action on April 4, 2023. No response to the action, nor opposition, 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. (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 before the time to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must only show that the case is incorrectly classified. The complaint seeks relief pertaining to the property tax assessment on Plaintiff’s house. Specifically, a declaration by the Court that (1) “Defendants arbitrarily and erroneously assessed the property tax against the subject property; (2) as a result of this arbitrary and erroneous assessment, Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the extra property taxes paid to Defendants above and beyond what should actually have been assessed.” (Compl., ¶21.) It is clear the relief sought in the complaint that the action should be reclassified to a court of unlimited jurisdiction. As a limited jurisdiction court, Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse has no authority to grant the declaratory relief or refund sought. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 85, 86.) Therefore, Plaintiff has shown that the action is incorrectly classified.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Rick Ladd’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 THE WRITS AND RECEIVERS DEPARTMENT. PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.