Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 23STLC01704, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC01704, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC01704 Hearing Date: January 4, 2024 Dept: 26

PLS Custom Framing, Inc. v. Anaya Building Construction, Inc., et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-Complainant Anaya Building Construction, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. CROSS-COMPLAINANT IS TO FILE THE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

UPON THE FILING OF THE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT, THE CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR COLLECTION OF FEES AND REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT. CROSS-COMPLAINANT IS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff PLS Custom Framing Inc. (“Cross-Defendant”) filed the verified Complaint in this action against Defendants Anaya Building Construction, Inc. (“Cross-Complainant”) and BCAH Enterprises, LLC (“Defendant BCAH”). Cross-Complaint filed its answer and cross-complaint on May 1, 2023. On May 3, 2023, the Court entered Defendant BCAH’s default; it appears that the Court still allowed Defendant BCAH to file an answer on May 9, 2023.

Cross-Complainant filed the instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint on October 27, 2023. Cross-Defendant filed an opposition on December 15, 2023.

Discussion

The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473, subdivision (a) and 403.030. Code of Civil Procedure section 473, provides that “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) The policy favoring amendments and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. [Citation.]” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . . . [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) Where a proposed amendment opens an entirely new substantive area of injury on the eve of trial without any explanation for why the major change had not been made long before, denial of leave is appropriately ordered in the court’s discretion. (Id.)

Here, Cross-Complainant explains that it filed a cross-complaint on May 1, 2023 that sought damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this court. (Motion, Greenberg Decl., ¶4.) Cross-Complainant also paid the reclassification fee. (Ibid.) However, Cross-Complainant was only recently informed that the action was not reclassified because the cross-complaint did not contain the necessary reclassification language on its face. (Id. at ¶5.) Cross-Complainant now seeks leave to amend to include that language on the proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 403.030, if a cross-complainant files a cross-complaint that does not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the limited jurisdiction court, “the caption of the cross-complaint shall state that the action or proceeding is a limited civil case to be reclassified by cross-complaint, or words to that effect. The party at the time of filing the cross-complaint shall pay the reclassification fees provided in Section 403.060, and the clerk shall promptly reclassify the case.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.030.) Cross-Complainant has already paid the reclassification fee such that allowing leave to amend solely to include the necessary language is appropriate.

The opposition provides no basis to deny leave to amend. It refers to a number of unrelated procedural problems that have no bearing on amendment or reclassification. First, Cross-Defendant points out that Defendant BCAH’s answer filed on May 9, 2023 should be struck because its default was entered on May 3, 2023. Also, to the extent Cross-Defendant complains that Cross-Complainant’s answer was not verified, as required to respond to a verified complaint, Plaintiff may seek leave to strike the answers. Cross-Defendant also complains that improper discovery was served and it will be prejudiced by reclassification. The opposition cites no authority that either the type of discovery served, nor prejudice to another party, are grounds to deny reclassification. The case it cites did not involve amendment in order to achieve reclassification and referred to prejudice that results when trial is imminent. (Citing P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345.) This is not relevant in this action, where the trial date is still nine months away. Nor is the opposition supported by any declaration that demonstrates the prejudice Plaintiff would suffer as a result of the amendment.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Cross-Complainant Anaya Building Construction, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. CROSS-COMPLAINANT IS TO FILE THE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.