Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV43553, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV43553    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

              Plaintiff Allen Dailes, IV, as successor in interest to Allen Harris (“Decedent”), sued defendants Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”), Flame Harris, Misty Harris, and Aisha Harris based on a motor vehicle collision while Decedent was a passenger on a bus owned and operated by MTA.  MTA moves to reclassify case as a limited jurisdiction case.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 86, a limited civil case is a case in which the demand, exclusive of interest, amounts to $25,000 or less. (Code Civ. Proc., § 86, subd. (a)(1).) The court must order reclassification of a case from unlimited to limited “when . . . it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict” under $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.)  In determining whether the demand of the case exceeds $25,000, the court aggregates the amount of damages each plaintiff seeks. (See Collins v. City & County of San Francisco (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 719, 724.)

Decedent passed away on December 17, 2019, and, as of the filing date of the motion, Decedent’s estate has not been substituted in his stead.  Rather, Plaintiff maintains the action as Decedent’s successor in interest. 

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34, “[i]n an action or proceeding by a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest on the decedent’s cause of action, the damages recoverable are limited to the loss or damages that the decedent sustained or incurred before death, including any penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived, and do not include damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.34.) 

According to counsel for MTA, Eitan Yehoshua (“Counsel”), Plaintiff’s discovery responses indicate that the sum of Plaintiff’s medical bills incurred as a result of the incident is $11,910.70.  (Declaration of Eitan Yehoshua, ¶ 7.)  The Court notes, however, that in its July 19, 2022 Minute Order, the Court sustained MTA’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and ordered Plaintiff to file and serve an amended complaint within 20 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  (See July 19, 2022 Minute Order.)  The Court also notes that MTA has yet to file proof of service of notice of the Court’s July 19, 2022 Minute Order on Plaintiff.  Absent that proof of service, the Court is unable to determine by what date Plaintiff must file his second amended complaint, if he wishes to do so. 

Because it is unclear whether and by what date Plaintiff will file and serve a seconded amended complaint, it is also unclear whether Plaintiff intends to seek any additional damages, such as punitive or exemplary damages, which would otherwise increase the potential sum of Plaintiff’s recovery. 

Consequently, the Court cannot say at this time that Plaintiff will necessarily recover less than $25,000 in this case, and therefore denies the motion without prejudice.  MTA shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.