Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2022-01241235, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Reclassification

Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify Case as Limited Jurisdiction is DENIED.

An action shall be treated as limited civil if “[t]he amount in controversy does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars,” with amount in controversy defined as, “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(a).)

“The designation of a case as either a limited or an unlimited action has significant implications because the available relief and applicable procedures differ as to each. Most significantly, if a case is designated as a limited civil case, the court has no authority [Citation] In contrast, a court presiding in unlimited civil actions may enter a judgment that falls within the range of a limited civil action and/or that could have been entered in a limited civil court. [Citation]” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 274–275.)

“[C]ourts have imposed a high standard on a trial court's determination that a matter does not meet minimum amount-in-controversy requirements” due to “the risk of depriving a plaintiff of the right to a jury trial in the forum of choice.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270.) Transfer to the court of lesser jurisdiction is only appropriate when “(i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (ii) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount, and the court affords the parties an opportunity to contest transfer.” (Id. at 262.) The question is whether a verdict over $25,000 is “virtually unattainable.” (Id. at 269.) A Walker hearing “is not to be perceived as a minitrial or an opportunity for a trial judge to put forth a well-educated guess of a verdict. 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.)

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated the possibility of a judgment in an amount exceeding $25,000. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges damages including medical expenses, loss of earnings/earning capacity, and general damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiff claims over $6,000 in past medical bills and contends she will require knee surgery in August 2023. Plaintiff’s discovery responses state she experiences daily knee and hip pain. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations and evidence, Defendant has not shown an award in excess of $25,000 is impossible or virtually unattainable. Therefore, the motion is denied.