Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV02249, Date: 2024-07-19 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Samvel Khachatryan alleges that on November 15, 2021 on the 5 freeway northbound near the Western Avenue exit in Glendale, defendant Dory Cabinta Macatlang negligently operated and owned a motor vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that traffic suddenly came to a stop and plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended by defendant, and that as a result of the impact plaintiff sustained bodily injuries and property damage.

The form complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff has suffered wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage and loss of earnings capacity. No damages sum is alleged in the complaint. There is no statement of damages in the file.

“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:

The California Supreme Court in construing when a case could be transferred to a municipal court under previous CCP § 396 held that a matter could be transferred when it would “necessarily” result in a verdict below the jurisdictional amount. Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262. The Court stated that this standard “requires a high level of certainty that a damage award will not exceed $25,000 and is not satisfied by a finding that such an award is merely ‘unlikely’ or ‘not reasonably probable’.” Walker, at 269.

Walker authorizes the trial court to conduct a pretrial hearing to obtain information about whether the amount of a judgment to be rendered will justify reclassification. See Walker, at 268; Stern v. Superior Court (2003 2nd Dist.) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 231.

The appellate court reviews a reclassification order “according to an abuse of discretion standard, i.e., whether the court made an informed decision within its discretion or whether the order exceeded the bounds of reason.” Stern v. Superior Court (2003, 2nd Dist.) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 231; citing Walker at 272.

Defendant here argues that this matter should be reclassified to a limited jurisdiction matter, as discovery has shown that the amount in controversy does not exceed $35,000.

(1) A case at law if the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) or less.”

The statute was revised effective January 1, 2024 to increase the jurisdictional minimum from $25,000 to $35,000. This case was filed on October 24, 2023. The case accordingly appears to be subject to the jurisdictional minimum in effect on that date, which was $25,000. Case law interpreting former versions of jurisdictional statutes when the limits were adjusted has held that where there is a statutory change of jurisdiction of a court and no clearly expressed intention to the contrary, the amended statute will be held to operate prospectively rather than retrospectively. Dillon v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1950, 2nd Dist.) 98 Cal.App.2d 437, 439.

The statute here does not include any express language indicating that the new jurisdictional minimum was intended to apply retroactively, as opposed to prospectively, that is, for cases filed on or after January 1, 2024.

The motion does not address this issue or explain why the January 1, 2024 amendment should be applied in this case retroactively. The court here will apply the $25,000 minimum, as opposed to the $35,000 urged in the moving papers.

Defendant here argues that according to plaintiff’s own representations the total amount of plaintiff’s special damages for the medical treatment he received is $5,190, and the estimate for the property damage to his vehicle is $6,817.36.

Defendant relies on plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, in which plaintiff indicates that the medical treatment received consisted of consultation and treatment with a medical doctor, costing $4,790, and x-rays costing $400, with no medication prescribed. [Ex. A, Responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.4, 6.5]. When asked if there are any other medical services necessitated by the injuries, plaintiff responded, “No.” [Ex. A, Response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.6].

Plaintiff’s responses also indicate that a written estimate for property loss is $6,817.36, and that plaintiff does not attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the incident, or other damages. [Ex. A, Responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 7.2, 8.1, 9.1]. A copy of the estimate from Alliance United Insurance Company is attached as Exhibit B.

There has been no timely written opposition filed in response to this motion, so plaintiff evidently is not planning to claim significant additional damages, and it would appear likely that there has been no change in plaintiff’s position concerning not pursuing loss of earnings, income, or earning capacity, or other damages, since the discovery responses were served in February of 2024.

The Court finds from the pleadings, file and the showing made in the motion that the verdict in this case would necessarily result in a verdict below this court’s jurisdictional amount. See Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262. The matter is ordered reclassified and transferred to limited jurisdiction.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.