Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 23STLC05564, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC05564, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC05564 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: 26

Sybirski v. Zarabian., et al.

LEAVE TO AMEND; RECLASSIFY

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576, 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Reah Sybirski’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and to Reclassify Case Under Unlimited Jurisdiction is CONTINUED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE HEARING IS CONTINUED TO JUNE 20, 2024 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING SPREET COURTHOUSE. BY MAY 30, 2024, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION THAT COMPLIES WITH CAL. RULES OF COURT RULE 3.1324(a) REGARDING LEAVE TO AMEND. THE MOTION IS DENIED AS TO RECLASSIFYING THE ACTION UNDER THE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION COURT.

ANALYSIS:

On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff Reah Sybirski (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint against Defendant Nikou Zarabian (“Defendant”) alleging professional negligence. The Complaint alleges that Dr. Zarabian failed to properly diagnose and treat Plaintiff’s dental condition. (Bridwell Decl. ¶ 2.) On March 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and to Reclassify Case Under Unlimited Jurisdiction. On April 15, 2024, Defendant filed and opposition and Plaintiff untimely replied on May 7, 2024.

Discussion

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

“A 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).) Such amendment may occur “at any time before or after commencement of trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)¿ “A motion to amend a pleading before trial must . . . [s]tate what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and [s]tate what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)¿ The declaration must also specify the amendment’s effect, why it is necessary and proper, when the facts supporting the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request was not made earlier.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)¿

If the party seeking the amendment has needlessly delayed, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend.¿ (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)¿ Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.¿ (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)¿¿ ¿

Plaintiff contends good cause exists for the Court to permit her to amend the Complaint because “the facts alleged in the new amended complaint arise out of the original facts that form the basis of this lawsuit.” (Sybirski Decl. ¶ 7.) Specifically, the original complaint alleged that Defendant was liable for their conduct in treating her dental issues while the amendments merely reflect the fact that Defendant and putative defendants were negligent in their conduct and further liable for malpractice and the physical and emotional damages caused.” (Id.) Moreover, Plaintiff states that the amendments are necessary and proper because they set forth more fully and accurately all claims against Defendant and Putative Defendant. (Mot. p.13.) Plaintiff’s amendments also include an increase in the amount of damages.

Plaintiff explains the timing of the discovery of the new facts because that she recently discovered the “pleading requirements and claimable damages in the State of California . . .” (Sybirski Decl. ¶ 6.) Given that the amendments arise out of the original facts and the Motion is brought long before the February 2025 trial date, there is no indication of needless delay that would prejudice Defendant.

However, the motion is procedurally defective. For instance, Plaintiff provides the following “1. Detailing of the parties, and adding Nikou Zarabian DDS, Inc., a California corporation, and Does as a defendant Para. 1:4 (Pg. 1:2). 2. Clarity to facts, claims, and allegations at Para. 1:40 (Pg. 1:10). 3. Adding Prayer for Relief (Pg. 9:10). 4. Adding Causes of Action for (i) Dental Malpractice– Para. 25:34 (Pg. 6:8); and (ii) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress– Cover Page, Para. 35:40 (Pg. 8:9).” (Mot. pp.10-11.) This fails to comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a) because “[a] motion to amend a pleading before trial must . . . [s]tate what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and [s]tate what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”¿(emphasis added.) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)¿

Therefore, the request for leave to amend is continued to allow Plaintiff to file an amended declaration with the necessary itemization of the allegations to be added and deleted.

Motion to Reclassify Under Unlimited Jurisdiction Court

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 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).) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, 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.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.) In Ytuarte, 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 [emphasis added].) Nevertheless, the plaintiff must 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.” (Id. [emphasis added].)

Here, Plaintiff’s Proposed First Amended Complaint states her damages demand exceed the jurisdictional limits of the court. (Proposed First Amended Complaint p. 7.) Specifically, Plaintiff states that her damages are $25,250.00. (Sybirski Decl. ¶¶ 2.) However, effective january 1, 2024, the jurisdictional maximum of the limited court is $35,000.00. (Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subdivision (a).) Therefore, the request to reclassify the action is denied.

Conclusion

Court clerk to give notice.