Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC03102, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC03102    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 26

Porretta, et al. v. Zetino, et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Nicholas Porretta and Rachel Porretta’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 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION COURT. PLAINTIFFS ARE TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On May 8, 2023, Plaintiffs Nicholas Porretta and Rachel Porretta (“Plaintiffs”), in propria persona, filed this action to quiet title against Defendants Juan Zenito (Defendant) and “All Persons Claiming any Right, Title, or Interest in the Property Described Herein.” Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on May 12, 2023 and Defendant, also in propria persona, answered on June 30, 2023.

Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on February 9, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

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, Plaintiffs must show both good cause for the timing of the request and that the case is incorrectly classified. Plaintiffs demonstrate that the Complaint was incorrectly classified due to their clerical error in filing out the Civil Case Cover Sheet. (Motion, Porretta Decl., ¶2.) Upon discovery of this mistake, Plaintiffs promptly filed the instant Motion. (Ibid.) Additionally, the case is incorrectly classified insofar as Plaintiffs only seek declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to real property. (See Compl. and FAC.) This relief is not available in the limited jurisdiction court. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 85, 86.)

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Nicholas Porretta and Rachel Porretta’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 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION COURT. PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Court clerk to give notice.