Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC06879, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC06879    Hearing Date: July 31, 2024    Dept: 26

White v. Rivera, et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Craig White’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff Craig White (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Aimee Rivera (“Defendant”). Defendant answered the Complaint on January 3, 2024. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify the Action on June 10, 2024. Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion on June 26, 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 that the case is incorrectly classified and good cause for the timing of the Motion. Plaintiff’s Motion contends that this action was originally filed in the limited jurisdiction court based on medical specials of $2,945.00. (Motion, Quirk Decl., ¶3.) At the time the action was filed, Plaintiff did not inform Plaintiff’s counsel of a loss of earnings claim. (Id. at ¶4.) Only after Defendant propounded discovery did Plaintiff give their counsel information demonstrating loss of earnings in the amount of $62,500.00. (Id. at ¶6.) However, the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel reciting these facts is insufficient to show a possibility of damages that exceed the jurisdictional limit. It lacks any of the information purportedly produced by Plaintiff and attaches no corroborating documentation of the loss of earnings. Therefore, Plaintiff has not shown a possibility that their damages will exceed the jurisdictional limit.

Regarding the timing of the Motion, Plaintiff must also show good cause for seeking reclassification six months after Defendant’s answer was filed. Neither the memorandum of points and authorities nor the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel addresses this requirement. Plaintiff’s counsel simply declares that they were not informed of the loss of earnings claim by Plaintiff until a meet and confer effort regarding discovery propounded by Defendant. (Ibid.) This is insufficient to show good cause for the timing of the Motion.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Craig White’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.