Judge Randy Rhodes, Case 21CHCV00576 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 21CHCV00576, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00576 Hearing Date: December 19, 2022 Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 12/19/22 JURY TRIAL: 4/17/23

Case #21CHCV00576

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

Motion Filed: 8/15/22

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Fresh Start Healthy School Meals, Inc., a California corporation; and Juan Carlos Saucedo, an individual (collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Ruben Ramirez, an individual

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order reclassifying this action from an unlimited civil action to a limited civil action.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is denied.

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.¿When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who was previously employed by Defendants as a truck driver, brings this action alleging various Labor Code violations against Defendants. On 8/2/21, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (3) Non-compliant Wage Statements; (4) Wages Not Timely Paid During and Upon Separation of Employment; (5) Unpaid Business Expenses; (6) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (7) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; (8) Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and (9) Failure to Provide Employment Records in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1198.5 and 432.7.

On 10/26/21, Defendants filed their answer.

On 8/15/22, Defendants filed the instant motion to reclassify. On 12/5/22, Plaintiff filed his opposition. On 12/8/22, Defendants filed their reply.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

A defendant “may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading.” (Code 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; [and] (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.” (Id., subd. (b).)

In a limited civil case, “the amount in controversy does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). As used in this section, ‘amount in controversy’ means the amount of the demand, or the recovery sought, or the value of the property, or the amount of the lien, that is in controversy in the action, exclusive of attorneys' fees, interest, and costs.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a).)

An unlimited civil action may be reclassified as a limited civil action when: (1) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (2) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will “necessarily” result in a verdict below the superior court’s jurisdictional amount. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.) In determining the correct classification of a case, the court must assume the existence of facts supporting the complaint, and may not evaluate the case based on its own determination of the merits. (Id. at 269.) Only when there is a high level of certainty that a damage award will not exceed $25,000 will the case be reclassified as a limited civil case. (Ibid.) This standard is not satisfied by a finding that such an award is merely “unlikely” or “not reasonably probable,” but instead it must be shown a higher award is “virtually unobtainable.” (Ibid.)

Here, as Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on 8/2/21, and moving Defendants filed their answer on 10/26/21, the instant motion for reclassification may only be granted upon Defendants’ showing that an amount in controversy exceeding $25,000 is “virtually unobtainable,” and that good cause exists for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040, subd. (b); Walker, 53 Cal.3d at 269.)

(1) Amount in Controversy

Defendants argue that the action should be reclassified because “Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to prove any of his 9 separate causes of action” following discovery efforts. (Defs.’ Mot., 4:18.) However, as set forth above, the standard for determining the classification of an action requires the Court to assume the existence of the factual allegations in the complaint without evaluating the merits therein. (Walker, 53 Cal.3d at 269–270.) The purpose of this rule is to protect against “the risk of depriving a plaintiff of the right to a jury trial in the forum of choice.” (Id. at 270.)

As Plaintiff observes, “whether an action qualifies as a limited civil case is determined initially from the prayer for relief (demand) in Plaintiff’s complaint, not from the evidence at trial or the amount of the ultimate judgment.” (Pl.’s Opp. 4:23–25.) Here, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants failed to compensate him for overtime hours worked, sick leave, and business-related expenses and costs he incurred. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20–21.) Plaintiff further alleges that he was not provided with uninterrupted meal and/or rest breaks. (Compl. ¶ 19.) As such, Plaintiff alleges that he is owed at least $67,860 in unpaid overtime wages alone. (Pl.’s Opp. 6:6.)

Defendants support the instant motion with declarations from their current and former employees, which each state that they have no knowledge of any Labor Code violations as to Plaintiff. (Exhibits A and B to Defs.’ Motion.) However, as Plaintiff argues, even if the declarations are taken to be true, this “does not mean Plaintiff did not suffer wage and hour violations. The fact that these individuals may not know about it is not definitive for liability.” (Pl.’s Opp. 7:1–2.)

Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s responses to their requests for production of documents show a lack of evidence of Plaintiff’s allegations. (Defs.’ Reply, 5–6.) The Court notes that Defendants’ reply brief, referencing the purported requests and responses, is not supported by admissible evidence. Nevertheless, even if assuming that these are Plaintiff’s true and correct responses to the propounded requests, Defendants fail to show, to a high level of certainty, that Plaintiff cannot recover over $25,000 in damages.

Defendants’ requests purportedly seek evidence documenting the alleged Labor Code violations, to which Plaintiff responds: “the responsive documents are in the exclusive control, custody, and possession of the Requesting Party,” and Plaintiff would produce all responsive documents in his possession. (Defs.’ Reply, 3:14–16.) Despite Defendants’ arguments, these responses are insufficient to disprove Plaintiff’s factual allegations supporting his prayer for damages over the amount of $25,000. Furthermore, Defendants cite to no authority showing that an employee in such a case is responsible for possessing such documents.

Accordingly, Defendants have not sufficiently shown a high level of certainty that Plaintiff cannot recover over $25,000 in damages.

(2) Good Cause

Defendants argue that they failed to bring the instant motion within the time allotted under Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, subdivision (a), because counsel was retained late “through clerical error,” and did not have a chance to file the motion until after discovery was conducted. (Defs.’ Mot., 5:16–23.) Defendants also argue that statutes of limitations may be equitably tolled, as should be the case here due to COVID-19 restrictions causing staffing shortages and filing delays. (Id. at 5:25–6:6.)

As Plaintiff observes, the tolling statute referenced by Defendants does not apply to the instant motion. (Pl.’s Opp., 4:8–9.) Moreover, Defendants’ arguments are insufficient to show good cause for bringing the instant motion one year after Plaintiff filed his complaint, and ten months after Defendants filed their answer.

Notwithstanding this analysis, given the Court’s above finding that Defendants have not sufficiently shown that the action should be reclassified, it is not necessary for the Court to make a ruling on whether Defendants have shown good cause for failure to file the instant motion within the allotted time. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040, subd. (b).)

(3) Timeliness

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s opposition papers to the instant motion were untimely filed under rule 8.54 of the California Rules of Court. (Defs.’ Reply, 1:25–2:13.) This rule is inapplicable to the instant motion, as it applies only to appellate courts. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) applies here, which requires opposition papers to be filed at least nine court days before the hearing on the motion. Therefore, the deadline for Plaintiff to file his opposition was 12/6/22. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005, subd. (b).) Here, Plaintiff filed his opposition on 12/5/22. Accordingly, the filing was timely.