Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV06838, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06838    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify Case to Limited Jurisdiction

Moving Party:          Plaintiff Myron Hill

Resp. Party:             None

Plaintiff Myron Hill's Motion to Reclassify Case to Limited Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

I.           PRELIMINARY COMMENTS

As indicated below, the Court is granting Plaintiff’s motion to reclassify this action as a limited case.  However, since the amount in controversy in only $100.00 (see Motion, p. 1:18), the Court wonders why this case isn’t be pursued as a small claims action.

II.        BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff Myron Hill (“Hill”) filed a complaint against Defendant Armando Scognamillo alleging the intentional tort of general negligence. (Complaint, pp 3-4.)

On July 20, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff Myron Hill’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories—General, Set No. One.

On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff Myron Hill moved the Court to reclassify this case to a court of limited jurisdiction. The motion is unopposed.

III.     ANALYSIS

A.          Legal Standard

“A court contemplating ordering reclassification on its own motion must . . . provide notice to the parties.” (Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 230, citing Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 268; Kent v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1394.) “Whether a party makes a motion, or the court raises the jurisdictional issue on its own motion pursuant to section 403.040, subdivision (a), the court must provide ‘sufficient opportunity to respond and offer reasons why [reclassification] should or should not be ordered.’” (Id. at p. 230, quoting Walker v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 272.)

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 $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)

In Ytuarte, 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.) The plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, then the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.” (Ibid.)

B.          Discussion

Plaintiff states that “[t]he amount of the c[l]aim in question is $100.00.  (Motion, p. 1:18.)  He further states he “incorrectly classified the above action as an unlimited civil case.” (Hill Decl., filed July 26, 2022.)

The motion is unopposed. 

IV.       CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Myron Hill's Motion to Reclassify Case to Limited Jurisdiction is GRANTED.