Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV35281, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35281    Hearing Date: January 18, 2023    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

            Plaintiffs Grecia Jimenez, Aiden Martinez, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Grecia Jimenez (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued Defendant Eutimio Perez (Defendant) based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendant moves to reclassify this action as a limited civil case.  Plaintiffs oppose 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.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, “[t]he plaintiff, cross-complaint, or petitioner may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading.  The defendant or cross-defendant may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading.  The court, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).)  If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time designated by statute, “the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The case is incorrectly classified.  (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).) 

Here, Defendant filed his answer on February 16, 2022, and filed this motion on December 21, 2022.  Defendant must therefore show that the case is incorrectly classified and good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.  With respect to the case being incorrectly classified, Defendant contends Plaintiffs’ combined medical expenses and property damage amounts to $2,496.19.  Notwithstanding, the Court cannot say that Plaintiffs will necessarily recover less than $25,000 in this case because Plaintiffs also seek general damages for their pain and suffering.  (See Complaint, p. 3.)  On that basis alone, the Court denies the motion, and does not need to reach the question of whether Defendant has shown good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. 

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.