Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 24AHCV00342, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24AHCV00342    Hearing Date: August 6, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

MARIPOSA LANDCAPES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NORTON SIMON MUSEUM OF ART AT PASADENA, a Califiornia Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation; and DOES 1-25,

Defendants.

Case No.: 24AHCV00342

Hearing Date: August 6, 2024

Time: 9:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant NORTON SIMON MUSEUM OF ART AT PASADENA

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. (plaintiff) filed the complaint against defendant Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena (defendant) on February 20, 2024. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) common count, (2) account stated, (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) breach of contract, and (5) unjust enrichment. This matter arises from a dispute over a landscape maintenance contract between the parties. Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the contract dispute, payments for services paid by defendant to plaintiff was $12,501.77 per month. Plaintiff alleges it is owed for invoices dated 12/31/2022 and 1/30/2023 for a total of $25,003.43 owed. Plaintiff alleges defendant issued a check for $4,972.93 with a deduction for bollards which defendant alleges were damaged. Plaintiff denies damaging bollards on defendant’s premises. Plaintiff alleges that defendant owes it the $25,003.43 and defendant refuses to pay.

Defendant files the instant motion on April 26, 2024. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The court, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time. . . 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).)

“A court contemplating ordering reclassification on its own motion must also provide notice to the parties. (Kent v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1394.) Whether a party makes a motion, or the court raises the jurisdictional issue on its own motion pursuant to section 403.040, subdivision (a), the court must provide ‘sufficient opportunity to respond and offer reasons why [reclassification] should or should not be ordered.’ (Walker v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 272.) Even if no hearing is held, before ordering reclassification the court must afford the parties an opportunity to contest reclassification.” (Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 230.)

DISCUSSION

The amount in controversy for this case is $25,003.54. The minimum amount for unlimited civil jurisdiction is $35,000. Accordingly, the court finds the case has been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification. The correct jurisdictional classification is limited civil, thus the case warrants reclassification.

The parties have the opportunity to respond and offer why reclassification should or should not be ordered. Thus, the court sets a status conference to determine whether reclassification is proper.

Based on the foregoing, the court CONTINUES the motion to compel arbitration to _________, in order to determine whether reclassification is necessary.

The court sets a status conference for ___________.