Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2020-00032005-CU-PN-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024
06/28/2024 10:30:00 AM C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited Professional Negligence Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00032005-CU-PN-CTL KANESHIRO VS ETHOS VETERINARY HEALTH LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:
TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO RECLASSIFY PLAINTIFFS' UNLIMITED CASE TO LIMITED CIVIL CASE is GRANTED.
Defendants ETHOS VETERINARY HEALTH LLC, DR. LEILANI WAY, DR. LUIGI TOPACIO, and DR.
ELIZABETH MANNUCCI ('Defendants') seek to reclassify Plaintiffs JANELLE KANESHIRO and ANTHONY CARCHEDI's ('Plaintiffs') unlimited civil case into a limited civil case pursuant to CCP section 403.040.
The plaintiff, cross-complainant, 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. A motion for reclassification does not extend the moving party's time to amend or answer or otherwise respond. The court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification, regardless of any fault or lack of fault, if the case has been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040(a).) If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party to amend that party's initial pleading or to respond to a complaint, cross-complaint, or other initial pleading, 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(b).) 'The unlikeliness of a judgment in excess of $25,000 is not the test. The trial court reviews the record to determine whether the result is obtainable. Simply stated, the trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability.' (Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 402.) The standard for determining whether a case should be reclassified '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 v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 269.) Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence or argument to dispute that the compensatory damages claimed by Plaintiffs amount to no more than $17,000. Defendants have demonstrated recent discovery responses revealed this information.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3132412 52 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: KANESHIRO VS ETHOS VETERINARY HEALTH LLC 37-2020-00032005-CU-PN-CTL '[G]iven California law does not allow parents to recover for the loss of companionship of their children, we are constrained not to allow a pet owner to recover for loss of the companionship of a pet.' (McMahon v. Craig (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1519–1520.) While California law allows a pet owner to recover for mental suffering caused by another's intentional act that injures or kills his or her animal, Plaintiffs have not alleged intentional acts on the part of Defendants. (Plotnik v. Meihaus (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1590, 1605-1608.) In the absence of any indication that Plaintiffs will be able to demonstrate emotional distress damages are recoverable based on intentional acts of Defendants, the Court finds Defendants have meet their burden to show the case should be reclassified. Plaintiffs have not shown they could possibly recover more than $25,000. The motion is granted.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3132412 52