Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV38434, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38434    Hearing Date: January 6, 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

            Plaintiff Arash Nourollah (Plaintiff) sued Defendants PR BLU, LTD and Pacific Reach Property Management, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendants move to reclassify the action as a limited civil case.  Plaintiff opposes 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, Defendants filed their answer on February 28, 2022, and filed this motion on December 9, 2022.  Defendants 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, Defendants note that Plaintiff is not making a claim for medical specials or lost earnings, and contends Plaintiff’s combined property and loss of use damages are at most $24,968.91. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he is also alleging $10,000 in diminishment of value damages in addition to the property and loss of use damages which would total an amount greater than $25,000.  Further, as Defendant concedes, the estimated labor time and loss of use damages are uncertain at this time and thus, such damages could amount to more than Defendants estimate in their calculation of Plaintiff’s anticipated damages. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on Plaintiff’s additional diminishment of value claim, in addition to the variability in the amount of the loss of use claim, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff will necessarily recover less than $25,000.  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.