Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC08431, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC08431    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 26

Henderson, et al. v. Eden Iris Gardens LLC, et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Erica Henderson and Jeffrey Henderson’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On December 19, 2022, Plaintiffs Erica Henderson (“Plaintiff Erica”) and Jeffrey Henderson (“Plaintiff Jeffrey”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendants Rockvale Apartments LP (“Defendant Rockvale LP”), Rockvale Apartments GP, LLC (“Defendant Rockvale GP”), Rockvale Apartments Limited, LLC (“Defendant Rockvale Limited”), FPI Management[1], Inc. (“Defendant FPI”), and Eden Housing, Inc. (erroneously sued as Eden Iris Gardens, LLC (“Defendant Eden”) for: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) negligence, (3) nuisance, (4) personal injury, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) breach of contract.

Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on October 11, 2023. Defendants Eden and FPI separately filed oppositions on December 6, 2023. The Motion initially came for hearing on December 19, 2023 and was continued to January 23, 2024 to allow Plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing. (Minute Order, 12/19/23.) Defendants filed supplemental oppositions on January 16, 2024.

Discussion

The Motion to Reclassify is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, which 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).) 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.) Plaintiffs’ 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 after the time to amend the complaint, Plaintiffs must show both good cause for the timing of the request and that the case is incorrectly classified. Plaintiffs mistakenly contend that they are within the time to bring this Motion because Defendants have not yet filed answers to the First Amended Complaint. (Motion, p. 5:11-14.) However, good cause for the timing of the Motion must be shown if it is brought after the time to amend the initial pleading. Plaintiffs already amended the initial Complaint but have not provided evidence that the amount of their damages has changed since the filing of the action in December 2022 and filing the instant Motion almost a year later.

Nor have Plaintiffs provided evidence to demonstrate a possibility that their damages will exceed $25,000.00. Plaintiffs contend they will amend the pleadings to update the damages amount and submit the declaration of Plaintiff Erica, who states that they have calculated their final damages amount at $125,000.00. (Motion, Erica Henderson Decl., ¶7.) No explanation is provided as to how these damages were calculated, nor is the declaration supported by exhibits demonstrating the damages Plaintiffs have incurred. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a basis to reclassify the action. The Court does note that Defendant Eden’s contention that the declaration of Plaintiff is not sworn under penalty of perjury is incorrect. The declaration is properly attested. (Motion, Erica Henderson Decl., p. 2.)

Despite the Court providing Plaintiffs with an opportunity to file supplemental papers addressing these deficiencies, no such papers have been filed. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that reclassification of the action is appropriate.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Erica Henderson and Jeffrey Henderson’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.