Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC05720, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC05720 Hearing Date: February 14, 2023 Dept: 26
MOTION TO RECLASSIFY
(CCP § 403.040)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiffs Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane
Economy’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. PLAINTIFFS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE
WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On August 30, 2022, Plaintiffs Animal
Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy
(“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for injunctive
relief against Defendant Soccer Shop USA (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on November 3,
2022.
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to
Reclassify on January 9, 2023. No 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 to Reclassify was filed after the time
to amend the Complaint, Plaintiff must show both that the case is incorrectly
classified and good cause for the timing of the requested relief. It is clear
the injunctive relief sought in the Complaint against Defendant means 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 injunctive relief sought. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§
85, 86.) The supporting declaration also explains that the action was
inadvertently assigned to a limited jurisdiction court due to a clerical error
on the Civil Case Cover Sheet and this Motion was promptly filed once Plaintiff
learned of the error. (Motion, Wicklund Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Therefore, Plaintiffs
have shown that the action is incorrectly classified and good cause for
bringing the Motion at this time.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Animal Wellness Action
and Center for a Humane Economy’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. PLAINTIFFS TO PAY
THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.