Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV30532, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV30532    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Josefina Campos (sued as Doe 1)

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff Angela Rios Miranda

Motion to Reclassify Case to Limited Jurisdiction

The court considered the moving and non-opposition papers filed in connection with this motion.  No reply papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Josefina Campos (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order reclassifying this action, filed by plaintiff Angela Rios Miranda (“Plaintiff”), as a limited civil case.

“If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party . . . 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 the following conditions are satisfied: [¶] (1) The case is incorrectly classified[, and] [¶] (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).)  “A party seeking to reclassify a case from unlimited to limited faces a ‘high threshold.’  [Citation.]  The trial court must conclude ‘that the verdict will “necessarily” fall short of the superior court jurisdictional requirement of a claim exceeding $25,000.’  [Citation.]”  (Hiona v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 866, 872; Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a) [a limited civil case is one in which the amount of controversy does not exceed $35,000].)

The court finds that Defendant (1) has not shown that Plaintiff’s action is incorrectly classified, and (2) has not addressed the requirement establishing “good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).)  The court therefore denies Defendant’s motion.  (Ibid.)

First, the court finds that Defendant has not shown that Corporations Code section 17707.07 limits Plaintiff’s recovery to an amount below the jurisdictional limit.

“In general, members of a limited liability company are not liable for the ‘debts, obligations, or other liabilities of the limited liability company.  [Citations.]”  (CB Richard Ellis, Inc. v. Terra Nostra Consultants (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 405, 411.)  However, under section 17707.07, “[c]auses of action against a dissolved limited liability company . . . may be enforced against any of the following: [¶¶]  (B) If any of the assets of the dissolved limited liability company have been distributed to members, against members of the dissolved limited liability company to the extent of the limited liability company assets distributed to them upon dissolution of the limited liability company.”  (Corp. Code, § 17707.07, subd. (a)(1)(B).)

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged her remaining causes of action against Defendant based on her claims against the dissolved limited liability company WVP Precious Metals, LLC.  Instead, Plaintiff (1) has alleged that Defendant (sued and identified as Doe 1 on November 9, 2022) was Plaintiff’s employer, joint employer, and/or special employer (Compl., ¶¶ 5-6, 15), and (2) has therefore alleged her causes of action against Defendant separately, as Plaintiff’s employer (Compl., ¶¶ 99-100, 106, 114-115, 123-124, 130, 132, 139, 141, 145).  Thus, Corporations Code section 17707.07, which governs “[c]auses of action against a dissolved limited liability company,” does not apply to the causes of action alleged by Plaintiff against Defendant and therefore does not limit Plaintiff’s recovery to the $5,545 in distributions received by Defendant upon dissolution of WVP Precious Metals, LLC.  (Campos Decl., ¶ 4.)

Second, the court finds that Defendant has not shown that all of Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action plead damages less than the jurisdictional amount.

While Defendant contends that “the claims which will remain after this Court grants judgment on the pleadings on the 7th Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy plead damages of no more than $9,338.17[,]” the court has not yet ruled on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Thus, the seventh cause of action for wrongful termination remains pending against Defendant.  However, Defendant has not shown that a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on the seventh through 13th causes of action “‘will “necessarily”’” fall short of the jurisdictional requirement.  (Mot., p. 7:16-18 [“this case must be reclassified to limited jurisdiction because the amount in controversy in the 8th through 13th Causes of Action is far below the jurisdictional limit”] [emphasis added]; Hiona, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 872.)

Third, even if Defendant had shown that this case is incorrectly classified, Defendant did not set forth argument establishing “good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier[,]” therefore requiring denial of this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subds. (b), (b)(2) [“the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both” statutory conditions, including good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier, are satisfied] [emphasis added].)

ORDER

            The court denies defendant Josefina Campos’s motion to reclassify case to limited jurisdiction.

            The court orders plaintiff Angela Rios Miranda to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 11, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court