Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC01588, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC01588    Hearing Date: October 23, 2024    Dept: 26

Manoogian v. Cedillos, et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Aralhachig Manoogian’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff Aralhachig Manoogian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Victoria Cedillos (“Defendant”). Defendant answered the Complaint on August 25, 2023. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify the Action on August 20, 2024. Defendant filed an opposition on October 9, 2024 and Plaintiff replied on October 15, 2024.

Legal Standard

The Motion to Reclassify is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, subdivision (a), 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).) The Motion, however, does not cite the full statutory language as it omits the requirements set forth in subdivision (b).

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.)

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.) The jurisdictional limit, effective January 1, 2024, is $35,000.00. (Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a).)

Discussion

As the instant Motion 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 Motion. The Motion does not adequately address the timing of the request to reclassify, which was filed more than a year after Defendant’s answer. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration simply states that when the action was originally filed, they believed the damages would not exceed $25,000.00. (Id. at ¶2.) Further research apparently demonstrates that Plaintiff’s damages will far exceed the jurisdictional limit. (Ibid.) However, the manner and timing of this “further research” is not explained. Nor does the Motion offer any authority for what constitutes “good cause” under the statute to persuade the court that a vague assertion of “further research” is sufficient.

Second, the Motion does not present any evidence from the record regarding the possibility that Plaintiff’s damages will exceed $35,000.00. Without any supporting details, Plaintiff’s counsel declares the damages will “far exceed” the jurisdictional limit of this court, which they incorrectly believe to be $25,000.00. (Ibid.) Similarly, Defendant mistakes the jurisdictional limit to be $10,000.00 less than what has been statutorily set as of January 1, 2024. (Oppo., p. 2:23-24.) That Defendant propounded discovery appears to be for an unlimited jurisdiction case, therefore, does not demonstrate the possibility that Plaintiff’s damages will exceed $35,000.00.  

Therefore, the Court finds that neither requirement to reclassify the action to the unlimited jurisdiction court is satisfied.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Aralhachig Manoogian’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.