Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV11950, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)
Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
Case Number: 19STCV11950 Hearing Date: September 19, 2022 Dept: 29
Marcee Alexander v. Ross Stores, Inc.
Motion to Reclassify from Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction to Limited Civil Jurisdiction filed by Defendants Young Properties, Charles Dunn Real Estate Services, Inc. and Ross Stores, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TENTATIVE
Legal Standard
“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, 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.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(b).
The court can transfer an action to limited jurisdiction if “it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1992) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 262.)
The standard requires a “high level of certainty” that a damage award will not exceed jurisdictional limits.
“The court explained: ‘This standard 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.' " (Id. at p. 269, italics added.) Consequently, in deciding this issue, the trial court is¿not permitted to determine the merits of the plaintiff's claim(s); its sole inquiry is whether ‘the verdict will 'necessarily' fall short of the superior court jurisdictional requirement of a claim exceeding $25,000." (Singer v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1320.)
Discussion
Code of Civil Procedure, section 1008 allows a party to move for reconsideration of an order within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order, based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party making the application must “state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Ibid.) “A motion for reconsideration may only be brought if the party moving for reconsideration can offer ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion. (Citations.) A motion for reconsideration will be denied absent a strong showing of diligence.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690; Forrest v. State Of California Dept. Of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202 disapproved of and overruled on unrelated grounds in Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164, 1172 (footnote 3); New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212–213; Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199.)
Defendant’s motion to reclassify this case was denied on July 14, 2022, and notice was waived. (7/14/2022 Minute Order.) Defendant filed the subject motion on August 3, 2022, which was 20 days (and more than 10 days) after the court issued its order. Accordingly, the motion is not timely and must be denied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)
The court further notes that Defendant has not identified any new or different facts, circumstances, or law, which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion. The Court notes that Defendant now argues that Plaintiff did not indicate in discovery that she is making a loss of earnings claim, which is a new fact. However, the form interrogatories cited to were executed on June 9, 2021, and thus, Defendant has not shown diligence as to why this fact was not discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion.
Nevertheless, even without a loss of earnings claim, it does not appear to a “legal certainty” that Plaintiff cannot recover more than the jurisdictional amount. The amount of medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff to date is not dispositive. Plaintiff’s complaint also seeks loss of use of property, costs of suit, and general damages.
For these reasons, the court is inclined to DENY Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.
Monetary Sanctions
A violation of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1008, may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (d).) Plaintiff requests the court grant monetary sanctions against Defendant for bringing this motion, in the amount of $1,560. Plaintiff requests sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure, section 128.7, subdivision (d).
The Court of Appeal has recognized that sanctions are not allowed by section 128.7 unless all of the requirements of that section are followed, including the safe harbor provision. (Moofly Prods., LLC v. Favila (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 993, 997 (Moofly).) “In order to sanction a party on its own motion under section 128.7, subdivision (c)(2), the court must ‘enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate [section 128.7,] subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated [section 128.7,] subdivision (b), unless, within 21 days of service of the order to show cause, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected.’ (§ 128.7, subd. (c)(2).)” (Moofly, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 999.)
Conclusion
As such, the Court is inclined to DENY Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. The Court is considering continuing the hearing on the motion concurrent with an order to show cause regarding the imposition of sanctions. However, if the motion to reclassify is withdrawn, such an order to show cause would be moot. (Moofly, supra)