Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC00997, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC00997    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 26

Germain v. Behringer Harvard Redwood, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Geneveive Germain’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff Genevieve Germain (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Behringer Harvard Redwood, LLC, Greystar Worldwide, LLC, GS Redwood Property, LLC, Greystar California, Inc. and Does -1000, inclusive, asserting causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, (2) tortious breach of warranty of habitability, (3) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) nuisance, (5) violation of Cal. Business and Prof. Code section 17200 et seq., (6) negligence, and (7) fraudulent concealment/non-disclosure. Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint was overruled on July 20, 2023 and they filed an answer on August 8, 2023.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on January 23, 2024. Defendants filed an opposition on February 20, 2024 and Plaintiff replied on February 28, 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 the jurisdictional limit. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) The jurisdictional limit, effective January 1, 2024, is $35,000.00. (Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a).)

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 [the jurisdictional limit] and the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of [the jurisdictional limit] is obtainable.” (Ibid.)

As the instant Motion was filed after the time to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must show both good cause for the timing of the request and that the case is incorrectly classified. First, Plaintiff argues that the Complaint was incorrectly classified as limited due to the clerical error of Plaintiff’s counsel on the Civil Case Cover Sheet. (Motion, Jackson Decl., ¶4.) Plaintiff’s counsel only discovered this error upon reviewing discovery requests in November 2023. (Id. at ¶5.) As Defendants’ opposition points out, numerous documents from the Court to the parties indicate that this is a limited jurisdiction court, including the Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; General Order RE Limited Jurisdiction Civil Procedure: Notice of Web Portal Availability for Interpreter Requests; and Notice of Availability of Limited Civil Jurisdiction Web Portal for Interpreter Requests. (Opp., Exh. B.) That Plaintiff’s counsel failed to realize the action was in the limited jurisdiction court, even if excusable, does not rise to the level of good cause. The Motion cites no authority that defines “good cause” or that hold that an attorney’s failure to realize an action was in the limited jurisdiction amounts to good cause.

Nor does the Motion provide any evidence of Plaintiff’s damages in this action to demonstrate a possibility that they will exceed $35,000.00. First, it refers to the incorrect jurisdiction limit. Second, it only asserts in conclusory fashion that Plaintiff’s damages, which include medical expenses, moving expenses, rent, and pain and suffering, will exceed $25,000.00. (Motion, p. 7:10-14.) The only detail regarding damages provided is that the Complaint demonstrates Plaintiff’s monthly rent starting in March 2022 was $4,718.00. (Motion, Exh. A at Exh. A, ¶6.) This does not speak to Plaintiff’s total possible damages, however, because there is no allegation to indicate the extent of damages Plaintiff seeks based on the monthly rent. It is only in Plaintiff’s reply that evidence of damages, in the form of her responses to interrogatories, is attached. (Reply, Exh. AA.) Plaintiff claims the verified interrogatory responses show Plaintiff’s medical expenses amount to $47,845.00. (Id. at Exh. AA, Nos. 106.5, 106.6, 106.7, 107.1.) Including this evidence with the reply is improper as it deprives Defendant of proper notice of the basis of the Motion. In any event, Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for the timing of the Motion.

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Geneveive Germain’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.