Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00831, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 23CMCV00831 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV00831
Norma Wilson v. Nails on Fleek, et al.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO RECLASSIFY
The
Complaint filed on June 6, 2023, alleges that Plaintiff was a patron at the
subject premises. As Plaintiff received a manicure and pedicure at Defendant’s
premises, Defendant Jane Doe aggressively touched and tugged on Plaintiff’s arm
despite being asked to stop several times. Defendant Jane Doe physically
attacked and assaulted Plaintiff with such force that Plaintiff suffered
injuries and damages.
Plaintiff
alleges causes of action for (1) assault, (2) battery, (2) intentional
infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligence, and (5) negligent hiring, supervision,
and retention. Plaintiff prays for general and special damages.
Defendant moves to
reclassify the case as a limited jurisdiction matter. Plaintiff filed an
untimely opposition on May 7, 2024. No reply has been filed.
A motion to reclassify an
unlimited civil case as a limited civil case may be granted only if the court
determines that the plaintiff’s claim necessarily involves less than
$25,000.00—that a greater recovery “could not be obtained” or is “virtually
unobtainable.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 269-270.)
A motion for reclassification must be made within the
time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading or to respond to the
initial pleading. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) If a party files
a motion for reclassification after the time for that party to respond to a
complaint, 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 of Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd.
(b).)
Defendant has not provided
any evidence in support of its motion. The Court denies the motion on this
basis alone as it cannot find that the case is incorrectly classified with only
argument. Further it appears as if Defendant attacks the substantive
allegations rather than the ascertainable damages. Defendant also has not
provided any evidence or even argument as to Plaintiff’s claim for general
damages. In ruling on a motion to reclassify, the Court may not properly
“trespass into the province of the trier of fact” and in particular, “pain and
suffering are not subject to precise measurement by any scale and their
translation into money damages is peculiarly the function of the trier of
facts.” (Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401-402
[“The unlikeliness of a judgment in excess of $25,000 is not the test”].)
Based on the foregoing, the
court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify.