Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC07080, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC07080    Hearing Date: June 24, 2024    Dept: 26

Charukian v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Galia Rita Charukian’s Motion to Reclassify is GRANTED. THE 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.

ANALYSIS:

On September 8, 2023, Plaintiff Galia Rita Charukian (“Plaintiffs”), in propria person, filed this action for property damage against Defendants City of Los Angeles, United States of America, and U.S. Marshals Service (collectively, “Defendants”). In December 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney indicating they are now represented by counsel. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify on April 18, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date. No proof of service of the Summons and Complaint has been filed with respect to any Defendant.

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 before the time to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must only show that the case is incorrectly classified. Plaintiff argues that the Complaint was incorrectly filed in the limited jurisdiction court while they were self-represented and that the property damage caused by Defendants’ pursuit of a fugitive in their building exceeds the jurisdictional limit. Following the pursuit incident, Plaintiff obtained fire and water restoration services from Sargon Restorations, Inc. valued in the amount of $378,950.05. (Motion, Boyadzhyan Decl., ¶¶2-3 and Exh. A.) Based on this evidence, Plaintiff has shown the possibility that their damages will exceed $35,000.00.

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Galia Rita Charukian’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.